국가목표규정에 관한 비교법적 연구

명재진 ( Jae Jin Myung ) 세계헌법학회 한국학회 2011 세계헌법연구(世界憲法硏究) Vol.17 No.2

State objectives outline the content of future state activity. However, the decision of whether to take action, when to act, and what means to employ to implement the goal set forth in the state objective remains at the discretion of the legislature. Most importantly, state objectives do not provide individual rights. Thus, no actionable rights for citizens arise from the state objective. State objectives do, however, have an obligatory character in the sense that they command to the state adherence and realization of certain goals. Germany`s constitution, the Basic Law, contains several provisions designed as state objectives covering a broad range of topic areas: environmental protection, the social state principle, European integration, maintenance of peace, and fiscal responsibility. The State objectives are even more frequently found in state constitutions of Germany. Following reunification, the question of including state objectives instate constitutions was raised, especially in connection with the drafting of new constitutions for the eastern German states. Eventually, such provisions were included in all newly drafted constitutions, including, but not limited to, environmental protection, employment, housing, art, and sports. Constitution for Europe of 2004 has a special chapter for state objectives. That contains european integrating factors: peace, the well-being of its peoples, internal market where competition is free and undistorted, sustainable development, social justice, solidarity, promoting its values and interests. The Switzerland Constitution of 1999 has also independent chapter for social goals. It has concrete state goals, which the swiss federation must further: social security, the necessary care, work under adequate conditions, education and training according to their abilities, protection children and youths. State objectives in Korean Constitution have diverse forms, which range from abstract purposes to concrete goals. Regarding to the state objectives, Korean Constitution has some problems. It lacks of state binding power clause, and it has no important state goals such as actual implementation of equal rights for women and men and social state clause.

국가목표규정에 관한 비교법적 연구

명재진 국제헌법학회 한국학회 2011 世界憲法硏究 Vol.17 No.2

국가목표조항은 국가의 미래 활동에 대한 윤곽을 그려주는 역할을 하는데, 이를 실현하기 위한 구체적인 방법과 시기는 입법자의 재량에 속하게 된다. 무엇보다도 시민들은 국가목표조항으로부터 구체적인 청구권은 도출하지 못하지만, 국가기관은 국가목표조항이 갖는 공권력 기속력에 의해 그 행위의 재량도 통제받게 된다. 바이마르 공화국의 전통을 이어받은 독일연방은 광범위한 국가목표조항을 가지고 있다. 환경과 동물보호, 남녀평등의 실질적 구현, 유럽통합, 평화유지, 재정운영의 책임 등이 그것이다. 유럽연합의 헌법(안)도 특히 별도의 장을 두어 유럽연합이 추구해야 하는 국민적 통합의 방향을 제시하고 있다. 여기에는 평화유지, 국민들의 복리, 자유롭고 왜곡 없는 연합의 내부 시장, 사회적 정의, 연대, 연합의 가치와 이익의 증대 등이 규정되어 있다. 구동독지역의 독일 신생 지방국들의 헌법은 현대적 의미의 헌법체계에 맞게, 기본권과 국가목표조항을 함께 같은 조문에 규정하는 모습을 평균적으로 동일하게 보여주고 있다. 이는 헌법체계의 새로운 경향에 해당되며, 이에 대한 헌법학적 분석과 검토가 요구된다고 생각된다. 1999년 스위스 헌법도 별도의 국가목표규정을 두어 스위스 연방이 취하여야 할 국가의무를 부과하고 있다. 이와 관련하여 사회안전, 필요한 사회보장, 적합한 조건하의 근로, 능력에 따른 교육과 실습, 아동과 청소년의 보호 등의 가치들이 열거되어 있다. 한국헌법의 경우 많은 국가목표조항을 두고 있지만, 선진국의 그것과는 달리 명확한 정의와 집중적인 별도의 장을 통한 보호가 부족하고, 비교법적으로 볼 때 흠결된 현대적 국가목표조항들이 존재하는 등 문제점이 발견된다. 이러한 문제점을 극복하기 위해 보다 상세한 비교법적 검토와 아울러 체계적이고, 현대적 헌법이론에 적합한 국가목표조항의 섬세한 설계가 요구된다고 본다. State objectives outline the content of future state activity. However, the decision of whether to take action, when to act, and what means to employ to implement the goal set forth in the state objective remains at the discretion of the legislature. Most importantly, state objectives do not provide individual rights. Thus, no actionable rights for citizens arise from the state objective. State objectives do, however, have an obligatory character in the sense that they command to the state adherence and realization of certain goals. Germany’s constitution, the Basic Law, contains several provisions designed as state objectives covering a broad range of topic areas: environmental protection, the social state principle, European integration, maintenance of peace, and fiscal responsibility. The State objectives are even more frequently found in state constitutions of Germany. Following reunification, the question of including state objectives instate constitutions was raised, especially in connection with the drafting of new constitutions for the eastern German states. Eventually, such provisions were included in all newly drafted constitutions, including, but not limited to, environmental protection, employment, housing, art, and sports. Constitution for Europe of 2004 has a special chapter for state objectives. That contains european integrating factors: peace, the well-being of its peoples, internal market where competition is free and undistorted, sustainable development, social justice, solidarity, promoting its values and interests. The Switzerland Constitution of 1999 has also independent chapter for social goals. It has concrete state goals, which the swiss federation must further: social security, the necessary care, work under adequate conditions, education and training according to their abilities, protection children and youths. State objectives in Korean Constitution have diverse forms, which range from abstract purposes to concrete goals. Regarding to the state objectives, Korean Constitution has some problems. It lacks of state binding power clause, and it has no important state goals such as “actual implementation of equal rights for women and men” and “social state clause”.

국유재산과 공물의 비교고찰

강호칠 고려대학교 법학연구원 2022 고려법학 Vol.- No.107

In Korea, the theory of Public Objects law has developed relatively abundantly and stably with the French concept of Le domaine public, centering on Germany's Öffentliche Sache concept. while in Germany Public Objects and State property have been treated separately, while in France have been treated the same in the same legal system. Germany's Öffentliche Sache and France's Le domaine public are both translated as Public Objects, but since the latter includes the concept of administrative property, it has somewhat affected the tendency of theories and precedents to view administrative property and Public Objects as the same. In addition, the Korean State Property Act divides administrative property into official use, public use, and preservation use under the influence of the Japanese State Property Act. and as a result of not distinguishing between Administrative Property and Public Objects, Public Objects is divided into official goods, public goods, and preservation goods. This classification of Public Objects is not seen in Germany and France, where Korea's Public Objects law theory has been affected. In Korea, Public Objects law has developed as a part of the special discussion of administrative law, theoretically and academically, while the state property act developed in practice and positive law. because of low academic interest the latter’s development is limited. The State Property Act was enacted in April 1950 as the Financial Administration Act and was repeal enacted in November 1956. and after 22 revisions, it has introduced unique systems for the management and disposal of state property. and With the Commodity Management Act, Act on the Management of Military Supplies, State Credit Management Act, Management of the National Funds Act, and 「State Forest Administration and Management Act」, and 「Public Property and Commodity Management Act」, an independent financial administration law system different from Public Objects has established. State-owned land accounts for about 25% of the total land area, and the monetary value of state property is about 4,500 trillion won, accounting for about 27% of the total national assets. By understanding the state property act as a part of the Public Objects law, which is a benefit administrative corporation, confusion was caused not only in the state property act but also in the understanding of the Public Objects law. Public Objects Act is a public service provided to the people by administrative entities such as the state, and belongs to the realm of benefit administration and has many external provisions, while State Property Act belongs to the area of financial administration law, has many internal provisions, and has strong administrative organizational aspects. On the premise that State Property and Public Objects are different in concept and nature from each other and belong to an independent regulatory system, we hope that realistic and positive legal study on them will develop.

글로벌 안보에 관한 국제법적 접근 - 국가실패의 함의를 중심으로 -

김성원 한양대학교 법학연구소 2024 법학논총 Vol.41 No.4

State failure presents significant and multifaceted challenges to global security. In a state-centric international system, its consequences extend beyond the borders of the failed state, often causing severe negative impacts on the international community as a whole. It also raises critical questions in international law about the concepts of security, particularly concerning who referent objects are and who provides that security. This leads to a fundamental inquiry: must security always be provided by the state, or are other actors capable of fulfilling this role? Traditionally, international law approaches toward state failure by focusing on its negative consequences and emphasizing the restoration of statehood. This focus is rooted in the Montevideo criteria, which outline the fundamental elements required for statehood. When a state fails to meet these criteria, it ceases to be recognized as a subject of rights and obligations under international law. The loss of a functioning state is seen as a disruption to the international system, leading international law to prioritize the restoration of statehood as a means of maintaining global order. This binary framework—viewing actors strictly as either states or non-state entities—limits the ability of international law to address the realities of state failure. Entities that fall between these categories are often excluded from legal discussion, and the diversity of state failure is reduced to overly simplistic, generalized models. As a result, legal responses to state failure are often superficial and fail to address its deeper complexities. From a global security perspective, such oversimplification is particularly problematic. Global security cannot be achieved solely through the stabilization or security of individual states. A more comprehensive approach is required—one that addresses state failure in its various forms and develops tailored responses for each scenario. Furthermore, the focus should shift from protecting the state to ensuring the security of individuals, who are the ultimate beneficiaries of security. Addressing state failure also requires rethinking traditional assumptions about who provides security. The conventional view of the state as the sole security provider neglects the potential roles of non-state actors, especially in contexts where the state is unable or unwilling. This exclusion limits the ability of international law to respond effectively to state failure and its consequences. To overcome these limitations, this article advocates for incorporating the concept of human security into international legal approaches to state failure. By prioritizing the protection of individuals and ensuring at least a minimum level of security in failed states, international law can adopt a more inclusive and effective framework. This shift allows for a broader range of security providers and a deeper understanding of how to address state failure in the context of global security.

행정입법의무의 불이행으로 인해 소규모 소매점에 대한 접근권이 제한된 지체장애인에 대한 국가배상책임의 인정 여부

하 정 훈 사법발전재단 2025 사법 Vol.1 No.71

대법원 2024. 12. 19. 선고 2022다289051 전원합의체 판결(이하 ‘대상판결’이라 한다)은 위법한 부진정 행정입법 부작위로 인해 장애인의 접근권이 침해되었음을 이유로 국가배상책임으로 위자료를 인정하였다. 대상판결은 여러 의미에서 최초라는 의미를 갖는다. 대상판결은 장애인의 접근권을 헌법상 열거되지 않은 기본권으로 최초로 인정하였고, 부진정 행정입법 부작위를 이유로 국가배상책임이 인정된 최초의 판결이기도 하다. 또한, 대상판결은 국가배상법상 위자료를 인정할 때 위법한 행정입법을 사법적으로 통제함에 있어서 국가배상청구가 가장 유효하고 실질적으로 유일한 구제수단으로서의 의의가 있다는 점을 고려하여야 한다고 판시함으로써 국가배상법의 사법적 통제 기능을 강조하였다. 그 결과 대상판결은 장애인인 원고들에게 각 10만 원의 위자료를 인정함으로써 국가배상소송을 통한 제도개혁 소송의 가능성을 열었다고 평가될 수 있다. 본 연구는 대상판결에서 다뤄진 주요 쟁점을 다음과 같이 분석한다. (1) 우선 이 사건에서 문제 된 행정입법 부작위가 위법하다고 판단되는지를 살핀다. 행정입법 부작위의 위법성을 살피기 위해서는 그로 인해 침해된 권리의 성질에 대한 검토가 필요하므로 대상판결에서 문제 되는 장애인의 접근권의 성질과 그 내용, 헌법상 기본권으로의 인정 여부를 살핀다. 그 후 행정입법 부작위의 위법성 판단 기준을 살피고 이에 따라 이 사건에서 피고 대한민국의 행정입법 부작위가 위법한지에 대하여 검토한다. 다음으로, 위법한 행정입법 부작위를 전제로 그로 인해 국가배상책임이 성립하는지를 검토한다. 이를 위해서 우선 (2) 국가배상책임의 성립요건으로서 공무원의 고의·과실, 국가배상책임에서의 위법성 판단 기준으로서 ‘객관적 정당성 상실’에 관하여 검토한다. 이는 국가배상책임의 본질이 무엇인지와 관련이 있으므로 이에 관하여도 살핀다. 국가의 행위가 공법상 위법하다고 판단되었음에도, 국가배상법상 그 위법성을 별도로 검토하는 것이 타당한지, 이와 같은 맥락에서 객관적 정당성 상실의 요건이 어떠한 기능을 하는지에 대하여도 검토한다. 다음으로, (3) 국가의 위법한 행정입법 부작위와 대상판결에서 주장되는 손해 사이의 상당인과관계를 살핀다. 그 과정에서 장애인차별금지법상 도입된 ‘적극적 구제조치’ 소송을 통해 원고들이 소구할 수 있었던 내용이 무엇인지를 검토한다. 한편 대법원은 상당인과관계 인정을 위해 ‘직무의 사익보호성’이라는 요건을 요구하는데, 해당 요건으로 인해 장애가 없는 원고에 대하여는 국가배상책임이 인정되지 않는다는 점을 본다. 마지막으로, (4) 대상판결 사안에서 위자료를 인정할 만한 정신적 고통이 있었다고 볼 수 있는지와 위자료의 범위에 관하여 검토한다. 특히, 국가배상책임의 공법적 특성상 위자료를 인정할 때 고려할 특별한 요소가 무엇인지를 검토한다. 이른바 ‘명목적 손해배상’을 인정하는 외국의 사례에 비추어 우리나라에서도 유사한 취지의 손해배상을 인정함으로써 국가의 위법한 행위에 대한 사법통제적 기능을 강화할 여지가 없는지 살핀다. 본고는 이를 통해 대상판결이 장애인의 접근권 보장 및 행정입법의무와 관련된 법적 논의에 미치는 영향을 분석하고, 장래에 우리나라에서 장애인 접근성 규제 개선과 국가의 책임 범위를 둘러싼 법적 쟁점에 대한 ... Supreme Court en banc Decision 2022Da289051 decided December 19, 2024 (hereinafter the “subject case”) determined that the State should pay the consolation money to them as the liability of the State to compensate for damage caused to them on the grounds that the right of disabled persons to access was infringed due to illegal untrue administrative legislation nonfeasance. The subject case is significant in that it is the first precedent in many ways. The subject case first recognized the right of disabled persons to access as the fundamental right that is not enumerated in the Constitution of the Republic of Korea and was the first decision which admitted the liability of the State to compensate for damage arising from the nonfeasance of untrue administrative legislation. Furthermore, the subject case, by ruling that it should be considered that a claim for compensation from the State has significance as the most effective and practically the only remedy in controlling unlawful administrative legislation judicially when admitting the consolation money under the State Compensation Act, emphasized the judicial control of the State Compensation Act. As a result, the subject case can be evaluated to have opened the possibility for institutional reform through state compensation lawsuits by determined that the consolation money, equivalent to KRW 100,000, should be paid to each Plaintiff, who is disabled. This article analyzed the main issue dealt with in the subject case as follows. (1) First, whether the nonfeasance of administrative legislation at issue in this case is determined to be unlawful is examined. As a review of the nature of the right infringed thereby to examine the illegality of administrative legislation nonfeasance is required, the nature and details of the right of disabled persons to access in question in the subject case and whether the right may be recognized as the fundamental right under the Constitution of the Republic of Korea are examined. And then whether the nonfeasance of administrative legislation of the Rebpulic of Korea, the Defendant, is unlawful in this case according thereto is reviewed after examining the standard of determining the illegality of administrative legislation nonfeasance. In sequence, whether the liability of the State to compensate for damage arising therefrom on the premise of unlawful administrative legislation nonfeasance may be constituted is examined. For the sake of such review, first of all, (2) the intention or negligence of public officials as the constituent element of the liability of the State to compensate for damage and the “loss of objective justification” as the standard for determining the illegality of the state compensation liability are examined. This is relevant to the nature of the liability of the State to compensate for damage, and thus a review on the nature thereof is also made. Even though acts conducted by the State are deemed unlawful under public law, whether additionally reviewing the illegality thereof under the State Compensation Act is reasonable and how the requirement such as the loss of objective justification works in this context are also examined. Next, (3) the causal relationship between the State’s unlawful administrative legislation nonfeasance and damage alleged in the subject case is reviewed. In this process, what the Plaintiffs could claim through “proactive remedial measures” lawsuit introduced under the Act on the Prohibition of Discrimination Against Persons with Disabilities and Remedy Against Infringement of Their Rights is examined. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court viewed that “the protection of private interests in the course of duty” is required as a requirement to admit the causal relationship, and, due to the above requirement, the liability of the State to compensate for damage is not recognized in relation to the Plaintiff without a disability. Lastly, (4) whether there can be seen to have been any ...

영유아보육프로그램 활동목표의 내용요소 및 진술방법 분석

강경란,이완정 한국아동권리학회 2016 아동과 권리 Vol.20 No.2

The purpose of this study is to scrutinize the content elements and stating methods of Activities Objectives stated in the Infants and Toddlers Curriculum of Standard Child Care program. The subjects of the study are 26 books developed and supplied from 2012 to 2013 from the "Infants and Toddlers Curriculum Based on the Standard Child Care program (0~2years)" and "the Nuri Curriculum(3~5years)." The Activities Objectives described in activities which are analysis unit consisted of 8,559 of 1,649 Activities Objectives of the Infants Program and 8,559 Activities Objectives of Toddlers Curriculum. The main results of this study are summarized as follow: First, there are significant differences between the sub-items and the distribution of sub-items in content elements of the Activities Objectives, content elements of each Infants and Toddlers Curriculum, and the content elements of each of the standard care process. Second, the expressive objectives are most commonly used as the stating method of the Activities Objectives. Third, there are significant differences between the methods according to the content elements of the Activities Objectives and Infants and Toddlers Curriculum specific content elements. In conclusion, when stating the objectives of the activities, it is important to be flexible and write them focusing on the content elements proper for the developmental stages of infants and toddlers. In addition, recognition is required to plan, execute and assess lessons according to the stating method. 본 연구는 어린이집표준보육과정의 영유아보육프로그램에 진술된 활동목표의 내용요소와 진술방법을 살펴보고 그 분포와 관계를 분석하고자 하였다. 연구의 자료는 2012년부터 2013년까지 개발 보급된 ‘어린이집 표준보육과정에 기초한 영아보육프로그램(0~2세)’ 과 ‘누리과정에 기초한 어린이집 프로그램(3~5세)’ 총 26권을 대상으로 하였다. 분석단위인 활동에 기술된 목표 진술문은 영아프로그램의 활동목표 1,649개와 유아프로그램의 활동목표 6,990개로 전체 8,559개였다. 연구결과는 첫째, 활동목표의 내용요소 하위항목별 분포와 영아 및 유아 프로그램별 내용요소, 표준보육과정의 영역별 내용요소에서 하위항목 간 유의미한 차이가 나타났다. 영유아프로그램에서는 ‘기술’ 내용요소의 빈도가 가장 높았으며, 이 결과를 통해 영유아프로그램의 교수학습 지도 방식이 목표 진술문을 통해 자연스럽게 표현되고 있음을 알 수 있었다. 둘째, 활동목표의 진술 방법으로 표현목표가 가장 많이 사용되고 있었다. 영유아의 보육과정에 있어서 영유아의 탐색과정과 다양한 표현을 중시하는 교육적 태도가 활동목표를 통해 진술되고 있음을 알 수 있다. 영아의 경우 행동목표의 진술이 그 다음으로 많이 나타났고, 표준보육과정의 신체운동 영역에서 그 빈도가 가장 높았다. 행동목표가 영유아의 확산적 사고와 놀이방법, 교사의 수업지원을 제한한다는 한계점이 있는 만큼 목표 진술시 이 부분을 인식하고 기술할 필요가 있을 것이다. 셋째, 활동목표의 내용요소에 따른 진술방법에도 유의미한 차이가 있었으며, 영유아프로그램의 활동목표는 보육과정의 내용요소와 목표의 진술방법에서 전체적으로 편향되어 나타났다. 결론적으로 활동의 목표를 진술할 때에는 영아와 유아의 발달에 맞는 내용요소에 중점을 두어 융통성 있게 기술해야 할 것이며, 진술방법에 맞게 수업을 계획하고, 실행, 평가할 수 있는 인식이 필요할 것이다.

우주물체 발사국의 우주활동에 대한 책임과 우리나라 우주정책의 개선방향

이강빈 ( Kang Bin Lee ) 한국항공우주정책·법학회 2013 한국항공우주정책·법학회지 Vol.28 No.2

Korea launched the science satellite by the first launch vehicle Naro-ho(KSLV-1)at the Naro Space Center located at Oinarodo, Cohenggun Jellanamdo in August,2009 and October, 2010. However, the first and second launch failed. At last, on January 30, 2013 the third launch of the launch vehicle Naro-ho has successfully launched and the Naro science satellite penetrated into the space orbit. Owing to the succeed of the launch of Naro-ho, Korea joined the space club by the eleventh turn following the United States, Russia, Japan and China.The United Nations adopted the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, the Rescue Agreement of 1968, the Liability Convention of 1972, the Regislation Convention of 1976, and Moon Agreement of 1979. Korea ratified the above space-related treaties except the Moon Agreement. Such space-related treaties regulate the international liability for the space activity by the launching state of the space object.Especially the Outer Space Treaty regulates the principle concerning the state’s liability for the space activity. Each State Party to the Treaty that launches or procures the launching of an object into outer space is internationally liable for damage to another State Party or to its natural or judicial persons by such object or its component parts on the earth, in air space or in outer space.Under the Liability Convention, a launching state shall be absolutely liable to pay compensation for damage caused by its space object on the surface of the earth or to aircraft in flightThe major nations of the world made national legislations to observe the above space-related treaties, and to promote the space development, and to regulate the space activity. In Korea, the United States, Russia and Japan, the national space-related legislation regulates the government’s liability of the launching state of the space object.The national space-related legislations of the major nations are as follows : the Outer Space Development Promotion Act and Outer Space Damage Compensation Act of Korea, the National Aeronautic and Space Act and Commercial Space Launch Act of the United States, the Law on Space Activity of Russia, and the Law concerning Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency and Space Basic Act of Japan.In order to implement the government’s liability of the launching state of space object under space-related treaties and national legislations, and to establish the standing as a strong space nation, Korea shall improve the space-related policy, laws and system as follows : Firstly, the legal system relating to the space development and the space activity shall be maintained. For this matter, the legal arrangement and maintenance shall be made to implement the government’s policy and regulation relating to the space development and space activity. Also the legal system shall be maintained in accordance with the elements for consideration when enacting the national legislation relevant to the peaceful exploration and use of outer space adopted by UN COPUOS.Secondly, the liability system for the space damage shall be improved. For this matter, the articles relating to the liability for the damage and the right of claiming compensation for the expense already paid for the damage in case of the joint launch and consigned launch shall be regulated newly.Thirdly, the preservation policy for the space environment shall be established.For this matter, the consideration and preservation policy of the environment in the space development and use shall be established. Also the rule to mitigate the space debris shall be adopted.Fourthly, the international cooperation relating to the space activity shall be promoted. For this matter, the international cooperation obligation of the nation in the exploration and use of outer space shall be observed. Also through the international space-related cooperation, Korea shall secure the capacity of the space development and enter into the space advanced nation.

매장문화재 국유에 관한 UNESCO-UNIDROIT 모델법률조항 - 국제사법적 함의와 우리 법제에의 시사점을 중심으로 -

이종혁(Lee, Jong Hyeok) 한국국제사법학회 2019 國際私法硏究 Vol.25 No.1

유네스코와 유니드로와는 문화재 기원국의 매장문화재 국유조항의 효력이 외국법원에서 인정되지 않는 현상을 해결하기 위하여 「매장문화재 국유에 관한 모델법률조항」을 성안하였다. 모델법률조항은 각국이 국내입법에 참고할 수 있는 모델법률조항으로서, 단순하고 간결한 문언을 통하여 매장문화재가 불법반출 전에 소재하고 있던 국가의 법률조항이 외국법원에서도 명확히 적용될 수 있도록 하고 있다. 모델법률조항 제3조는 매장문화재는 국가의 소유로 하되, 이전에 기성의 소유권이 존재하는 경우에는 예외를 인정하고, 모델법률조항 제4조는 불법적으로 발굴된 문화재 또는 합법적으로 발굴되었으나 불법적으로 보유되고 있는 문화재는 도품으로 간주한다고 규정하며, 모델법률조항 제5조는 제4조에 따라 도품으로 간주되는 문화재의 소유권의 양도는 무효로 하되, 양도인이 양도시에 유효한 권원이 있었다고 소명할 수 있는 경우에는 양도가 유효하다고 규정한다. 모델법률조항의 이들 규정은 우리「매장문화재 보호 및 조사에 관한 법률」의 태도와 차이가 있는 것으로 보이고, 동 법률을 개정하여야만 채택할 수 있는 것으로 보인다. 다만, 각국의 매장문화재 보호법제와 국제사법이 상이하므로, 문화재 기원국과 그로부터 불법반출된 문화재가 소재하고 있어서 반환소송이 계속한 법정지국이 모두 모델법률조항을 채택하지 않는 이상 모델법률조항의 실효성은 제한적일 수밖에 없다. UNESCO and UNIDROIT drafted Model Provisions on State Ownership of Undiscovered Cultural Heritage in 2011 for the purpose of resolving foreign courts’ reluctance to recognize origin state’s legal provisions on the state ownership of undiscovered cultural objects. The legal nature of the Model Provisions is model legislative provisions and their simple and clear wordings can help the foreign courts apply origin state’s legal provisions on undiscovered cultural objects’ state ownership without the ambiguity that often arises before foreign courts. Provision 3 of the Model Provisions provides that undiscovered cultural objects are owned by the origin state, provided that there is no prior existing ownership; Provision 4 provides that cultural objects excavated contrary to the law or licitly excavated but illicitly retained are deemed to be stolen objects; and Provision 5 provides that the transfer of ownership of a cultural object deemed to be stolen under Provision 4 is null and void, unless it can be established that the transferor had a valid title to the object at the time of the transfer. As these provisions share different perspectives that are not in line with the relevant Korean law, the amendment is required in order for these provisions to be adopted. As each state’s legal system on undiscovered cultural heritage and private international law varies from state to state, the effectiveness of the Model Provision is limited unless both an origin state and a forum state adopt the Model Provisions.

국어 결과 구성과 동사의 사건 구조

김윤신(Kim, Yoon-shin) 중앙어문학회 2014 語文論集 Vol.57 No.-

이 논문은 국어 결과 구성의 유형을 나누고 생성 어휘부 이론에서 제시하는 사건 구조를 이용하여 각 유형별로 동사의 사건 구조에 따라 나타나는 결과 구성의 특징을 살펴보는 것을 목적으로 한다. 먼저 결과 구성이 주어나 목적어 중 어느 것과 관련된 것이냐를 기준으로 주어 결과 구성과 목적어 결과 구성으로 나누었다. 주어 결과 구성은 기본적으로 동사가 달성 동사로 상태의 변화를 나타내며 주어는 그 상태 변화의 대상이 된다. 목적어 결과 구성에는 동사가 다양하게 나타나는데 방향성 동작 동사, 상태 변화 완성 동사, 산출 동사 등이 각각 나타난다. 방향성 동작 동사는 결과 상태를 함의하는 정도가 약한데 이는 동사의 사건 구조에 결과 상태가 당연 사건으로 나타나기 때문이다. 상태 변화 완성동사는 비대격 동사인 달성 동사와 마찬가지로 결과 상태가 포함되어 있는 사건구조를 가지며 산출 동사도 마찬가지로 완성 동사이어서 결과 상태를 포함한다. 다만 상태 변화 완성 동사는 목적어가 변화의 대상이 되는 반면 산출 동사는 목적어가 변화의 대상이 아니라 변화의 결과이다. 이러한 달성 동사, 방향성 동작동사, 완성 동사, 산출 동사는 모두 상태의 변화를 함의하며 그 상태 변화의 결과인 하위 사건과 결과 구성의 관련성을 통해서 의미 합성이 일어나게 되며 의미 합성 이후에는 결과 사건이 두드러지게 된다. The purpose of this paper is to classify the type of the Korean resultative constructions and to examine the properties of the resulative constructions according to their verbs and types, by using the event structure of the Generative Lexicon Theory. Above all, the resultative constructions can be classified to the subject resultative construction and the object construction according to whether the subject or the object is related to the resultatives. As for the subject resultative construction, its verb denotes the change of state and its subject is the theme of the change. On the other hand, the object resultative construction appears with various types of verb: the directional activity, the accomplishment of change of state, the creation verb. The directional activity has a weak entailment of the result state because the result state event of its event structure is the default event. The accomplishment of the change of state has the event structure with the result state like achievement. The creation verb is also accomplishment and has the result state in its event structure. The only difference between them is that the object of the accomplishment of the change of state is the theme of the change, while the object of the creation verb is the result of the change. The achievement, the directional activity, the accomplishment of the change of state, and the creation verb entail the change of state. Because the result state which is the subevent of the event structure, is related to the resultative construction, the meaning composition is possible. Also the result state is outstanding in the event structure after the meaning composition.

행정절차 참여권의 침해와 국가배상책임 -대법원 2021. 7. 29. 선고 2015다221668 판결에 대한 분석을 중심으로

박설아 사법발전재단 2023 사법 Vol.1 No.65

최근에, 국가배상청구소송과 행정소송 간의 관계를 돌아보게 하는 대법원판결이 선고되었는바, 이를 소개하고 분석하려는 것이 이 글의 목적이다. 해당 판결의 사안에서는 폐기물 매립장 설치와 같은 공익사업을 시행하는 지방자치단체가 사업 시행과정에서 법령상 요구되는 주민의견 수렴절차를 누락하고(심지어 주민의견 수렴절차를 진행한 것처럼 관련 서류를 위조하여) 해당 시설을 설치·운영한 것에 대하여 해당 시설 인근지역의 주민들에게 그 지방자치단체가 정신적 손해배상책임을 부담하는지가 쟁점이 되었다. 대법원은 이 판결에서 그동안 국가배상책임의 제한 법리로 사용되었던 ‘객관적 정당성 상실 여부’를 판단 기준으로 적용하는 대신, 지역 주민들의 행정절차 참여권과 같은 행정법상 소위 ‘절차상 권리’의 침해에 대해서는 곧바로 국가나 지방자치단체가 주민들에게 정신적 손해에 대한 배상의무를 부담한다고 단정할 수는 없고, 주민들의 절차적 권리 침해로 인한 정신적 고통이 남아있다고 볼만한 특별한 사정이 있는 경우에만 국가나 지방자치단체가 위자료 배상책임을 부담한다는 취지에서 ‘원칙적 부정, 예외적 인정’의 입장을 개진하였다. 이러한 대법원판결의 입장은 그동안 국가배상책임 성부와 관련하여 학계에서 집중적인 논의의 대상이 되었던 여러 쟁점들 외에 새로운 논점을 추가로 제시한 것이라는 점에서 흥미롭다. 특히 그 판시 법리 중에서 ‘행정소송을 통하여 처분이 취소되거나 처분의 무효를 확인하는 판결이 확정된 경우 등’에는 특별한 사정이 없는 한 ‘절차적 권리 침해로 인한 정신적 고통에 대한 배상은 인정되지 않는다.’고 하여 행정청의 위법행위로 인한 국민들의 권리구제방법으로 행정소송을 통한 권리구제와 국가배상청구소송을 통한 권리구제의 관계를 생각해 보게 하는 내용이 포함되었다는 점에서 관심을 끈다. 그러나 이와 같은 관점은 행정소송을 통한 권리구제를 원칙으로 하는 독일법체제와 비교해 보더라도 훨씬 더 엄격한 관점에서 관련 주민들의 국가배상청구 가능성을 제한하는 법리이다. 오히려, 독일 법제와 달리 비재산적 손해배상을 일반적으로 인정하는 우리 법제에 따르면 국가배상법 제2조에서 규정하는 국가배상책임의 요건, 즉 공무원의 고의 또는 과실에 따른 위법행위 그리고 이로 인한 손해의 발생이라는 요건이 갖추어졌다면 국가배상책임을 인정하지 않을 이유가 없다. 배상되어야 하는 손해의 관점에서 볼 때, 절차적 권리의 침해가 문제 되는 모든 사건에서 해당 절차의 누락을 이유로 비재산적 손해배상을 인정할 수 있다고 단정하기는 어렵다. 그러나 관련 법령에서 절차적 권리를 보장한 것에 사익보호성이 인정되고, 당사자들이 행정결정에 참여하여 의견을 개진할 ‘기회의 상실’ 그 자체만으로도 손해의 발생을 인정할 수 있으며, 더 나아가 주민들의 자기결정권의 침해라고 볼 여지도 크고, 행정행위의 위법성이 중대명백한 경우라면 위법한 행정행위로 발생한 정신적 고통에 대한 손해배상은 인정되어야 할 것이다. 국가나 지방자치단체의 재정적 부담을 우려한다면 책임의 성립 자체를 부정할 것이 아니라 배상범위를 제한하는 등의 방식으로 해결하는 것이 더 적절한 방법이다. 항고소송을 통한 권리의 구제와 국가배상제도는 그 취지를 달리 하며 항고소송을 통하여 관련 행정처분이 취소되거... This article intends to introduce and discuss a recent Supreme Court decision that has us reflecting on the history of the interaction between administrative litigation and state compensation claims. The following serves as the foundation for the decision. A local authority that carried out a public project neglected to follow the legal process for getting locals' opinions while carrying out the project. The local government was responsible for the facility's installation and operation, and it also caused non-monetary damages to the nearby inhabitants. The main question was whether the government was accountable for the losses. Rather than relying on the decision regarding “whether objective legitimacy has been lost”, which has been utilized as a legal precept to restrict state liability, the Supreme Court made a declaration regarding the violation of administrative law's “procedural rights”, which include the right of local residents to engage in administrative processes. The Supreme Court expressed a position of “denial in principle” to the effect that the organization bears the responsibility for compensation. In light of this, it is not immediately possible to conclude that the state or local government bears the obligation to compensate the residents for mental damages. Rather, this obligation can only be made in exceptional circumstances where it is evident that the residents' mental suffering is still a result of the infringement of their procedural rights. The stance of this Supreme Court decision is intriguing because, in addition to addressing a number of topics that have been the focus of intense scholarly debate over the state's obligation to provide compensation, it also offers a fresh perspective. In particular, liability for mental suffering resulting from the violation of procedural rights is not recognized unless there are exceptional circumstances, according to the judgment's jurisprudence, “in cases where a disposition is revoked through administrative litigation or a judgment confirming the invalidity of a disposition is finalized.” As a result, it catches our attention because it contains content that makes us consider the relationship between the remedy of rights through administrative litigation and the remedy of rights through lawsuits for state liability as a method of redressing the rights of the people due to illegal acts of administrative agencies. However, this point of view severely restricts the possibilities of asserting state accountability, even when compared to the German legal system, which is built on the notion of remedies through administrative litigation. Rather, the requirement for state liability stipulated in Article 2 of the State Compensation Act, that is, a public official's intentional or negligent illegal act and the resulting damage, is based on our legal system, which generally recognizes non-pecuniary damages rather than the German legal system. There is no reason not to recognize the State's liability if this is in place. In terms of compensable losses, it is difficult to establish that non-pecuniary damages can be recognized for failure to follow the necessary procedure in all circumstances when procedural rights are violated. However, where the protection of the parties' private interests is recognized in the relevant statutes and the parties are denied the opportunity to participate in administrative decisions and express their opinions, the occurrence of damage can be recognized only by the ‘loss of opportunity’ itself. Furthermore, if the illegality of the administrative conduct is significant and obvious, compensation for mental distress induced by the illegal act should be recognized. Limiting the establishment of state culpability because of concerns about the financial burden on state or local governments is undesirable in terms of practical rule of law and the demand for adequate remedies for people's rights.