대학 산학협력단에 대한 입찰참가자격 제한 처분에 관한 공법적 고찰

오준근(Oh JunGen) 韓國土地公法學會 2016 土地公法硏究 Vol.73 No.1

이 논문은 대학의 산학협력단에 대한 입찰참가자격제한 처분의 문제점을 법리적으로 분석하고 그 해결방안을 모색하고자 기획되었다. 이 논문은 대학의 산학협력단은 대학과 그 대학에 소속된 모든 교수를 대표하여 산학연협력계약과 관련한 사무를 담당케 함을 목적으로 법률에 의하여 설립된 비영리 공익법인이라는 점, 산학연협력계약은 법인격이 있는 산학협력단 만이 체결할 수 있을 뿐, 교수는 개인 자격으로 체결할 수 없다는 점, 산학연협력계약에 있어 연구책임자인 대학의 교수는 연구의 자유 및 교수의 자유가 보장된 독립된 연구 및 교수 활동의 주체이며, 산학협력단의 사용인에 해당하지 않는다는 점 등을 분석결과로 제시함으로써 영리를 추구하는 사업자인 일반 기업의 법적 지위, 기업의 대표자와 사용자인 용역책임자의 관계 등과 본질적으로 구별되어야 함을 논증하였다. 이 논문은 입찰참가자격 제한 처분의 법적 근거를 분석하였다. 근거 법령이 일반 기업과 산학협력단을 구분하지 아니하고 있어서 그 위헌성 여부에 관한 논증을 한 결과 특정 교수의 부정행위를 이유로 대학의 모든 교수를 포괄하는 대표법인인 산학협력단의 입찰참가자격을 제한하여야 한다는 법해석이 가능하다면 그 근거 법률은 헌법에 합치되지 아니한다는 결론에 도달하였다. 위와 같은 이유로 대학의 산학협력단에 대한 입찰참가자격 제한 처분은 매우 신중하게 고려되어야 할 행정수단이어서 다른 행정수단이 고려되고, 실제로 다른 행정수단이 사용되었다면 이 수단을 선택할 수 없다고 판단함이 헌법합치적 해석에 해당된다는 점을 강조하였다. 입찰참가자격 제한 처분이 실제로 이루어진 경우 그 위법성 판단을 위한 소송 형식은 행정소송에 해당함을 제시하고 그 구체적 판단에 있어 재량권의 일탈 및 남용여부에 대한 판단이 있어야 함을 제시하였다. 대학의 산학협력단을 “부정당업자”로 판단함에 있어 매우 엄격한 법적용이 있어야 하고, 특정 교수의 부정행위를 이유로 산학협력단에 대하여 입찰 참가자격 제한 처분을 함으로써 그 대학에 속한 모든 교수가 제한 기간 동안 입찰에 참가할 수 없게 하는 것은 목적의 정당성 및 방법의 적절성이 인정될 수 있더라도 피해의 최소성 및 법익의 균형성의 원칙에 위배되어 과잉금지원칙 위반으로 위법할 수 있다는 점을 논증하였다. This paper aims to analyze the legal problems of the restriction on qualification for participation of the industry-academic cooperation foundation of a university in tendering procedures and to find the way out of theirs. First, the distinguishing characteristics of the Industry-Academic Cooperation Foundation (IACF) are indicated. A university may establish an organization to be in charge of the affairs for industry-academia-research cooperation prescribed by the school regulations. The IACF is a nonprofit public organization and it shall be a juristic person according to the 「Industrial Education Enhancement and Industry-Academia-Research Cooperation Promotion Act」. The director of any IACF may enter into an agreement on industry-academic cooperation with the State, a local governments, research institute, industrial enterprise, etc (State etc). This agreement is different as an agreement between private companies. Second, the legal backgrounds of the measures of the restriction on qualification for participation of a business entity in tendering procedures are analyzed. If the head of a state etc. finds that a person is likely to undermine fair competition or appropriate performance of a contract or that it is improper to permit a person to participate in a tendering procedure on any other ground, he/she shall place restrictions on qualification for participation of such inappropriate business entity in a tendering procedure for a period according to the 「Act on Contracts to which the State is a Party etc」.This paper draw the conclusion that these Acts are not in harmony with the「Constitution of the Republic of Korea」, because they do not differentiate between the private business entity and the IACF of a university in measures of a restriction on qualification for participation in tendering procedures.

감차합의서의 불이행을 이유로 한 직권감차통보처분의 법적 성질 - 대법원 2016. 11. 24. 선고 2016두45028 판결 -

오준근 ( Oh Jungen ) 법조협회 2017 법조 Vol.66 No.2

This case represents the legal problems of the resent Korean administrative practices which occurs in the course of the changing the authoritative one side administrative act to the consultative contractive one. The Mayor of Iksan County summoned the local passenger transport business chief executive officers and agreed with them about the reducing the number of the taxis in order to better the situation of the taxi business in their county. But a part of the taxi CEOs did not put into practice the planned reducing the number of their taxis and the Mayor ordered them to keep the agreement. The Agency regarded the local CEOs as the partners of the local administration and met and agreed with them about the plan of the strengthening the business situation. The Korean Supreme Court and the High Court showed quiet different viewpoint about the administrative order of the reducing the number of motor vehicles ; the Korean Supreme Court judges decided that this order was one of the administrative disposition with the additional clause in the form of an agreement, but the High Court judges saw that order as an enforcement of an agreement clause. This paper found the reason of the inconsistency of the judicial decisions in the problems of the current Korean legislative situation: There is no general regulation of the administrative contract in the Korean Administrative Procedures Act and the legal theory about this phenomena is not arranged. The process of the law suit about the dispute concerning the administrative contract is not activated in the Korean Administrative Litigation Act. The agreement of the reducing the number of the motor vehicles between the Iksan Mayer and the local business CEOs could not be regarded as a contract between the equal business partners. The passenger transport business is under the regulation of the Passenger Transport Service Act. Any person who intends to engage in passenger transport business shall prepare a business plan and obtain a license from the local agency. Therefore the agency and the license holder cannot be a equal partner of a agreement about the numbers of their motor vehicles. The decision of the Korean Supreme Court, which regarded the motor vehicle reducing order as a administrative disposition with the additional clause in the form of an agreement, was to be accepted as a unescapable judgement.

감차합의서의 불이행을 이유로 한 직권감차통보처분의 법적 성질 - 대법원 2016. 11. 24. 선고 2016두45028 판결 -

오준근 ( Oh Jungen ) 법조협회 2017 최신판례분석 Vol.66 No.2

This case represents the legal problems of the resent Korean administrative practices which occurs in the course of the changing the authoritative one side administrative act to the consultative contractive one. The Mayor of Iksan County summoned the local passenger transport business chief executive officers and agreed with them about the reducing the number of the taxis in order to better the situation of the taxi business in their county. But a part of the taxi CEOs did not put into practice the planned reducing the number of their taxis and the Mayor ordered them to keep the agreement. The Agency regarded the local CEOs as the partners of the local administration and met and agreed with them about the plan of the strengthening the business situation. The Korean Supreme Court and the High Court showed quiet different viewpoint about the administrative order of the reducing the number of motor vehicles ; the Korean Supreme Court judges decided that this order was one of the administrative disposition with the additional clause in the form of an agreement, but the High Court judges saw that order as an enforcement of an agreement clause. This paper found the reason of the inconsistency of the judicial decisions in the problems of the current Korean legislative situation: There is no general regulation of the administrative contract in the Korean Administrative Procedures Act and the legal theory about this phenomena is not arranged. The process of the law suit about the dispute concerning the administrative contract is not activated in the Korean Administrative Litigation Act. The agreement of the reducing the number of the motor vehicles between the Iksan Mayer and the local business CEOs could not be regarded as a contract between the equal business partners. The passenger transport business is under the regulation of the Passenger Transport Service Act. Any person who intends to engage in passenger transport business shall prepare a business plan and obtain a license from the local agency. Therefore the agency and the license holder cannot be a equal partner of a agreement about the numbers of their motor vehicles. The decision of the Korean Supreme Court, which regarded the motor vehicle reducing order as a administrative disposition with the additional clause in the form of an agreement, was to be accepted as a unescapable judgement.