부관(附款) 통제(統制)로서의 진정일부취소소송 활용에 관한 소고

이상천 ( Sang Cheon Lee ) 홍익대학교 법학연구소 2013 홍익법학 Vol.14 No.1

Administrative act is not so elastic through its strict standardization. Administrative agency should choose one to do or not to do, and there is no way but the two. This situation is not so useful and efficient to both sides, administrative agency and its counterpart. Supplementary clause on administrative act can tenuate its strictness and helps administrative act escape from too excessive standardization. But we should be alerted to the abuse of supplementary clause by administrative agency`s side. Thus the legal control of supplementary clause on administrative act is recommended. Following to our case law, only burden among supplementary clauses is regarded as an independent ``declaration of will`` seperated from its main administrative act and could be suited and sentenced alone, but the others not. Afterwards, as society develops forwards the more supplementary clauses will get their independence from main administrative act and be treated as an administrative act. Before 1991, all the supplementary clauses had been considered that they should be treated legally always with their main administrative act, but since 1991, burden could have been treated independently from its main dministrative act. And the same flow would go on. The above flow has been spreading theoretically by the name of ``lawsuit of impure partial cancellation`` against the view of case law. But it is doubtful whether the above form of lawsuit could be possible or not by the present legal system. In ways of interpreting law to control supplementary clause, we could take the three. One is to grant ``partial cancellation`` by the possibility of seperation from its main administrative act, another is to grant ``partial cancellation`` through the recognition of its independent presence, the other would be to grant ``partial cancellation`` by giving ``character of disposal``. In legistlative way, the legistlation of lawsuit for performance of obligation would be the most useful and efficient. In short, it is the most useful and efficient to grant every supplementary clause ``character of disposal`` to control it, which enables us to make use of ``lawsuit of pure partial cancellation``. Also it means that all supplementary clauses could be treated as an independent ``declaration of will`` and be regarded as an perfect object elligible for legal sue. If so, ``lawsuit of pure partial cancellation`` to all supplementary clauses could be possible. After that, the remaining point would be the problems of validity of supplementary clause in relation with the main administrative act in side of substantial law, which could be treated in main dispute in the name of ``possibility of independent cancellation``. However, it is strongly recommended that lawsuit for performance of obligation should be legistlated to do that.

要件으로서의 申告 · 申請에 따른 效果로서의 受理 · 登錄 · 許可의 槪念的 區分 再論

李相千(Lee Sang Cheon) 한국비교공법학회 2010 공법학연구 Vol.11 No.3

受理를 요하지 않는 申告와 受理를 요하는 申告의 구별기준은 실질적 요건을 심사할 경우인가의 여부가 要件論상의 주된 기준이나, 그 기준은 법률의 합리적 해석기준으로도 작용한다는 측면에서 양기준은 대립적으로 작용하는 것이 아니라 상호연관작용적 개념이다. 受理를 요하는 申告는 의무이행이라는 신고의 한계를 가진 개념으로 受理를 요하지 않는 申告와의 구별적 개념인 것이다. 이에 반해 등록은 허가와의 개념적 차별화로 인해 정립된 개념으로, 허가보다 덜 규제적 성격의 개념이라 할 정도의 것으로 신청을 전제로 하는 수익적 개념의 성질의 것이다. 그러므로 수리를 요하는 신고와 등록은 그 개념의 연원이 서로 달라 두 개념을 동일 평면에서 비교한다는 것은 적절한 논의가 아니라 할 것이다. 결국 요건으로서의 申告와 申請의 개념상 차이가 신고와 등록, 특히 ‘수리를 요하는 신고’와 ‘등록’을 명백히 구분해 준다. 신고와 신청에 대한 심층적 분석과 더 진행된다면 그 응답이라 할 受理 · 登錄 · 許可의 개념적 구분은 더 명확해 질 것이다. 등록과 허가는 같이 신청을 전제로 한 개념이기는 하나 둘의 구분은 허가제의 완화의 필요성으로 인한 것이다. 곧 등록은 허가와의 관계에서 허가제로 인한 규제를 약화시킬 필요가 있는 특정의 경우에 허가와는 달리 그 실질적 심사요건이라도 외형적 · 형식적으로만 심사를 하도록 하여 ‘원칙적 등록’을 표방하는 것으로 허가와의 상관관계에서의 규제완화적 개념이라 할 것이다. 등록과 허가는 私人의 공법행위로서의 신청의 결과 그에 대한 행정청의 응답으로 행해지는 것이고, ‘수리를 요하는 신고’는 신고를 전제로 수리가 행해지는 것인데 신청과 신고의 개념적 범주를 벗어나 입법되는 예는 드물 것이다. 왜냐하면 법학용어 이전에 이미 신청과 신고는 나름대로의 개념을 지닌 문화가 스며든 용어이기 때문이다. 특정 규제 대상을 두고 수리를 요하는 신고와 등록 · 허가 중 어느 제도를 활용할 것인가는 입법재량에 달린 것이지만 각기 신고의 개념적 한계와 신청의 응답의무이행이라는 한계를 넘어 해석될 수는 없기 때문에 해석론상 입법상황에 따라 그 구분은 당연하다고 하지 않을 수 없다. 그렇다면 申告의 개념을 해체하지 않는 한 受理개념이 해체될 수는 없으므로 수리를 요하는 신고와 등록 · 허가와는 엄연히 구분된다 할 것이다. 申告에 대한 개념정의와 행정법에서의 기능론이 활발하게 논구되면 될수록 受理 · 登錄 · 許可의 개념론적 구별은 정연하게 이루어질 것이다. 현대행정의 다변화 · 다양화는 申告의 개념도 필요로 하고, 등록, 허가 등의 개념도 필요로 하는 개념이다. 현대사회는 수리를 해체하여 허가로 통일하여야 하는 단순사회로 가고 있지는 않다. 신고와 신청등의 사인의 공법행위로 하여금 그 고유의 기능을 하게 할 일이지 유사성만을 강조하며 개념적 통합을 할 일은 아니다. 현대사회는 분화된 언어의 사회라 할 수 있을 것이고, 이 때 그 각 언어는 그 소유의 기능이 있는 것이다. ‘Statement’ is a way of duty fulfillment for a certain legal effect, and application is a way of right exercise for getting legal benefits. As shown above, the concepts of acceptance · registration · permission has come from reqirements of statement and application. There are two kinds of statement in statement which are statement with acceptance and statement without statement. The chief criteria of distinction between the two is whether the substantial requirements should be tested or not on theory of requirements, at the same time the above criteria can work as those of reasonable legal interpretation in a degree. Thus the above two criteria of distinction both in theory of requirements and in reasonable legal interpretation doesn't work in opposition, but work in relation with supporting each other. ‘Statement with acceptance’ is a concept having the limit of being only the statement, and its concept has come from the distinction from statement without statement. But the concept of registration has come from the differentiation from permission in conception and is a concept less restrictive than permission. That is to say, statement with acceptance and registration differ from each other in their origins and the comparison on the same flat between the two is irrelevant. In concrete, acceptance of statement with acceptance should be done through the test of substantial requirements, the effect of its acceptance is just the fulfillment of statement duty, but can have some other legal effects according law. ‘Registration’ is a legal system aiming at weakening the restrictive degree through application in some legistlation., and its test should be outward and formal, and by only the outward and formal test the acceptance should be carried out. Thus it is a concept less restrictive than permission, and tenuating controll. Of course, registration and permission is the reponse of administration, statement with acceptance is the concept which application is carried out on the premise of statement. After all the difference between statement and application in concept could ditinguish statement with acceptance from registration, and through the deeper research of statement and application the concepts of acceptance · registration · permission could become obvious.

공법 : 항고소송(抗告訴訟)과 국가배상(國家賠償)과의 기능적(機能的) 조화(調和)를 위한 시론(試論)

이상천 ( Sang Cheon Lee ) 한양대학교 법학연구소 2010 법학논총 Vol.27 No.4

In consideration of property continuance security in face of the phase of nontypical situation it is needed that we should elevate the practical use degree of Appeal Litigations. And the system of Administrative Remedies should be repaired to make it possible that State Compensation is managed more comprehensively than Appeal Litigations. Firstly, the Administrative Remedies should be divided into the two; one group which contains Appeal Litigations and State Compensation and the other ones which is destined to be treated according to the designated way via law or contract. it is unreasonable to divide them as Actions in Administrative Law and Compensation for Damage. The previous way of division enables the Administrative Remedies not to omit necessary remedies. Secondly, the leading idea of Appeal Litigations should be the continuance security of property. The concrete ways of fulfillment of it are the enlargement of Legal Interests in Administrative Law, the development of new unknown kinds of Appeal Litigations, the wide recognization of illegality conception in Appeal Litigations. Thirdly, the scope of remedies through State Compensation concerned with Reflexive Interests should be extended. It should be different from that of Appeal Litigations. Especially it is recommended that the requisite of protecting private inerests in duty performance is not necessary in the shape of State Compensation. it shoud be estimated as the reference material in measuring liability. Hitherto, the Actions in Administrative Law and Compensation for Damage which contains State Compensation and Compensation for loss has been discussed unconnectedly. Thus the Appeal Litigations and State Compensation have been treated unconnectedly each other in a degree. And There have been some deficits in the fulfillment of the constitutional idea of property continuance security in case of informal phase. By that, we have had no comprehensive consideration of the two. It is true that there have been some fragmentary discussions about the connection the two, but we have not taken into consideration the two mixingly in one. The two serves for just the one purpose of administrative remedy in case of informal phase. In this essay some problems of the two have been discussed. The Appeal Litigations should take the duty as the first remedies, and State Compensation should take the duty as the second ones. I hope that we could have great steps toward the legal theoretical development in Administrative Remedies via mixing the above two in case of informal phase.

행정과정상 協議의 法的 地位에 관한 小考

이상천(Lee, Sang-Cheon) 전북대학교 법학연구소 2015 法學硏究 Vol.44 No.-

‘협의’는 적어도 행정을 하는 전형적인 형태라고는 볼 수 없을지라도 어쩌면 가장 편의롭고 상대방인 사인에게도 행정에의 참여를 보장받는 민주행정의 성질을 톡톡히 가지는 행정활동형식이라 볼 수 있다. 그럼에도 위 ‘협의’에 대해 법률적인 터치는 거의 이루어지지 못하고 있었음이 사실이다. ‘협의’는 행정주체?행정기관 사이에서도 이루어지기도 하나 그 경우의 협의는 行政과 私人 사이에 이루어지는 협의와는 사뭇 다른 것이 사실이다. 그 때의 협의는 적어도 일방이 사인이 아니라는 점에서 처분성 유무의 문제는 일어날 여지가 거의 없는 것이고 다만 그러한 ‘협의’의 결과 사인에게 행해지는 처분 등을 다툴 때에 다소 문제가 될 수 있을 뿐 행정절차법이 적용되는 의미의 협의는 아니기 때문이다. 行政과 私人 사이의 ‘협의’는 크게 행정유도적 협의와 행정형성적 협의로 나누어 볼 수 있다. 전자는 행정측이 어느 정도 가이드라인을 정하고 그에 맞추어 私人의 협조를 이끌어내고자 하는 협의이고 후자는 行政과 私人이 실질적으로 서로 향후 행정활동의 내용을 형성하고 설정해 나가는 협의를 의미하는 것이다. 위 어느 경우이든 협의가 법령에 규정되어져 있는 것일 경우에 그를 거치지 않음은 법적인 문제를 일으킬 수 있다고 할 것인데 이에는 그 소정의 협의를 거치지 않을 경우 그 귀책이 사인에게 있을 경우와 행정에게 있을 경우로 나누어 살펴볼 수 있다 할 것이다. 협의를 거치지 않음이 사인에게 그 귀책이 있을 경우에는 그 협의가 법령에 근거를 둔 경우와 행정규칙에 근거를 둔 경우로 나누어 살필 수 있는 등 협의의 법적 효력문제는 깊이 검토해 볼 필요가 있다. 그리고 협의를 어떻게 어느 정도로 활용할 것인가의 문제에 있어서 적극적 활용론과 신중론이 교차하지만 취사선택의 여지로 그 활용의 적정성을 높이는 차원에서 최대한 활용할 것이 요청된다 할 것이다. 마지막으로 협의는 아직은 행정법상 의미형성적 용어이기 때문에 바람직한 협의는 어떠한 것이어야 할 것인가에 관하여 현상론상으로는 사회적 희망의 면에서는 대규모영역으로 빈도가 높은 경우에는 행정유도적 규율이 바람직스럽고 소규모영역에서 빈도가 낮은 경우에는 행정형성적 규율이 바람직하다고 할 수 있다 라고 일응 말할 수 있을 것이지만 그 바람직한 미래상의 정립을 위해서는 다음과 같은 3가지 점, 곧 첫째, 협의의 당사자에 관계되는 희생이나 비용측면에서의 부담을 경감해 주는 것이어야 하고, 둘째, 협의당사자에 있어서의 예견가능성을 확보하여야 할 것이어야 하며, 셋째, 행정에 의한 재량판단의 여지가 넓은 것과 관련하여 그를 통제하기 위해서 전문성을 활용하여야 하는 등이 고려되어야 할 것이다. 특히 그러한 전문적 식견은 협의단계를 지나 처분단계에 이르러도 활용될 수 있으므로 비용이 허락하는 한은 활용할 필요가 있다 할 것이다. The so-called ‘negotiation’ is not the typical type of administration work, but it is useful in democratic administration guaranteeing the benefit of citizens’ taking part in administration. After all, it is true the above ‘negotiation’ has been neglected in administrative law. In this article ‘negotiation’ between administrative authorities and private persons is treated. For ‘negotiation’ between administrative organs each other is different from ‘negotiation’ between administrative authorities and private persons in view of character of the party concerned. It has no relation with the matter of administrative disposal and that of administrative procedure. ‘Negotiation’ between administrative authorities and private persons could be divided into the two, the one is administration-leading ‘negotiation’, the other is administrationforming ‘negotiation’. the previous one means administration lead the private person into accepting administration’ view, but the post other means that the two parties negotiate each other into forming their own consensus. If ‘negotiation’ is omitted or neglected in case of the fact that it is based on the legal rule, it could cause trouble of legal controversy. the legal force in case of that situation is like prescribed. And the use of ‘negotiation’ should be aimed at enhance its utilization as far as it keeps its suitability. At last ‘negotiation’ is in process of being formed in administrative law. Thus the desirable frame of it should be studied on and on. the following three points should be kept carefully. ⅰ. ‘Negotiation’ should abbreviate the load on the side of the private person, ⅱ. The possibility of anticipation should be kept ⅲ. Administration’s discretion should be controlled through using specialist’ view in consideraton of wideness of the discretion on the side of administration.

[화학] 휴대용 원자 방출 분광계를 위한 제어 및 분석용 소프트웨어 개발

이상천(Sang Chun Lee),이장수(Chang-Soo Lee),정민수(Min-Soo Jung),류동항(Dong-Hang Ryu) 한국분석과학회 1998 분석과학 Vol.11 No.1

[화학] 글로우 방전을 이용한 혈청과 뇨의 분석기술 개발

이상천(Sang Chun Lee),최경수(Kyung-Soo Choi),손은호(Eun-Ho Son),심영진(Young-Jin Sim) 한국분석과학회 1998 분석과학 Vol.11 No.3

공공기관의 정보공개에 관한 법률 제9조 제1항 제1호의 법체계적 정합성

이상천(Lee Sang Cheon) 인하대학교 법학연구소 2010 法學硏究 Vol.13 No.2

이미 공공기관의 정보공개에 관한 법률 제4조 제1항에서 ‘타법령에서 정보의 공개ㆍ비공개를 규정한 경우에서의 그 적용할 규범’에 관해 규정하고 있음에도 동법 제9조 제1항 제1호에서 다시 ‘타법령에서 비공개를 정한 경우 공개하지 않을 수 있다’ 라는 취지로 규정하고 있음은 이해하기 어렵다. 이미 타법령에 비공개로 되어 있다면, 새삼 다시 공개ㆍ비공개를 규정할 필요도 이유도 없기 때문이다. 또 당연히 법령상 비공개로 되어 있을 경우도 비공개할 수 있는 재량적 사유의 다른 항목과 같이 규정하여 명실공히 비공개대상을 모두 묶어 표현하고자 하였으면, 위 제1호의 경우는 동법 제9조 제2호 내지 제8호의 경우와는 다른 표현을 썼어야 하는 것이다. 위 재량적 표현을 두고 타법령상 비공개대상정보를 정보공개의 원칙에 대한 예외로서 비공개할 수 있음을 규정한 취지를 정보공개청구권과의 법률상 의무의 충돌을 해결하기 위한 것이라는 논리를 펴나, 엄격히 말하면 그것은 그 타법령의 적용한계론상의 해석론일 뿐이다. 곧 위 제9조 제1항 제1호를 입법한 것 자체가 불필요한 것이고, 법규 명령상의 비공개정보를 의무적 비공개로 하지 않고 ‘공개하지 아니할 수 있다’ 라는 재량적 표현으로 연접(連接)하여 버린 것은 참으로 이해할 수 없다. 또 정보의 비공개대상을 정할 수 있는 법규의 형식을 총리령ㆍ부령은 제외하면서 그보다 하위규범인 조례를 넣고 있는 것은 규범력의 단계적 구조를 크게 흔들어 놓는 결과를 초래하고 있다. 이 밖에도 위 제9조 제1항 제1호가 위임명령 중 대통령령만 정보의 비공개를 정할 수 있는 법규형식으로 정하고 총리령ㆍ부령은 제외한 것은 합리적이지 않고 규범의 단계적 구조를 흔들어 놓는 혼란만 부추긴다. 이상과 같이 적어도 위 제9조 제1항 제1호의 존재는 법체계적 정합성을 크게 저해하는 불필요한 규정이므로 삭제되어야 마땅한 규정이다. 입법상 가장 기초적인 논리가 결여될 때 국민적 감시만이 효율적인 개선책인지 모른다. If once some information is fixed to be disclosed in an Act or Decree, it doesn’t have to be regulated again in a new norm like Act or Decree. Perhaps the Article 9-(1)-① of Official Information Disclosure Act was legislated in the purpose of expressing all disclosed informations in one article as the Article 9-(1). The above Article 9-(1)-① should be deleted because it is needed no more in legislation. The same Act has the Article 4-(1) which is legislated for the case of the other Act of Decree regulating closing some information concerned. Thus the presence of the above Article 9-(1)-① occurrs only the possibility of interpreting its meaning in several ways. It is not only of no use, but occurring crowdedness in interpreting the Article. If they insisted that all the disclosed information should have been expressed in only one article as the Article 9-(1)-①, The ① of the Article 9(1) should have been expressed otherwise, unlike the others from ② to ⑧. In case of the Article 9-(1)-①, it should be expressed like that ‘follow to the other Act of Decree’ or ‘should not be disclosed’. The expression which is fit in the others from ② to ⑧ is adapted to the Article 9-(1)-①, which is too rude in legistlation. The kinds of administrative mandate legistlation which can fix the objects of information disclosure contains the Municipal Ordinances which is lower than ordinances of the Prime MinisterㆍExecutive Ministry in legal enforcement power, but excludes doesn’t ordinances of the Prime MinisterㆍExecutive Ministry. The legistlation swings the stepped structure of legal norms. And the Article 9-(1)-① designates Presidential decrees but ordinances of the Prime MinisterㆍExecutive Ministry as the kinds of legal norms which can treat the objects of information disclosure, which is unreasonable and occurrs the crowdness swinging the stepped structure of legal norms. The unreasonability could have been pointed with only a little care, and it is the very fundamental matter in legistlation. It is regretful that such mistake happened in making ‘Official Information Disclosure Act’ which is very important in this information society. This is just a farce. Aftwards the logics should not be disregarded in legistlation.

수평 응축관내 2상유동양식의 판별에 관한 연구

이상천,한용운,신현승,이형돈,Lee, S.C.,Han, Y.O.,Shin, H.S.,Lee, H.D. 대한설비공학회 1993 설비공학 논문집 Vol.5 No.1

An experiment has been carried out to identify flow patterns in a horizontal condensing flow with R-113. Characteristics of flow patterns were determined based upon a statistical analysis of differential pressure fluctuations at an orifice. The probability density function and power spectral density function of instantaneous pressure drop curves for various flow conditions were obtained. In comparison to the results of air-water flows, the flow patterns in a condensing flow such as annular, wavy, slug and plug could be identified. The experimental data determined by this technique were compared with the flow pattern maps suggested by other investigators. The result indicates that the statistical characteristics of differential pressure fluctuations at an orifice may be a useful tool for identifying flow patterns both in condensing flows and in adiabatic two-phase flows.

行政審判請求人適格에 관한 立法論

李相千(Lee Sang-Cheon) 동아대학교 법학연구소 2010 東亞法學 Vol.- No.46

More than 20 years have passed since the legistlation of the law of administrative trial which defines the locus standi as ‘who has interest in law’. Even though there have been little objection to the revision of the above provision, the expression ‘who has interest in law’ exists still as it is. There have been severe cotroversies whether the legistlation of locus standi of the law of administrative trial has error or not, concerned with the legistlation of locus standi. But Almost all the people agree to the enlargement of locus standi of administrative lawsuit. The crucial error of the legistlation of locus standi is that the law of administrative trial has strong self-cotradictory regulations(Article 1 and Article 9) in itself which don't agree with each other. The Article 1 describes the trial subject as both of illigality and injustice, but The Article 9 describes the locus standi as 'who has interest in law'. This means that all the interests in fact are excluded from protection, because the injustice doesn't go with the concept of interest in law and it doesn't consist with the infringement of right. Thus, all the those who have only interest in fact can't take objection to the injustice. It is not the true purpose of the law of administrative trial. We are under the substantive rule of law by our constitutional law. All the legal rights should be able to be protected through the legal process. But only those ‘who has interest in law’ can be protected through the administrative lawsuit. In reality, it is common that the legistlation of law is not carried out to take the all the interests into account. If the legistlation doesn't rule some interest, it can't be protected. The legistlation designate the sorts of interest which can be proteceted or not. There exist some interests which can't be protected. This result isn't consistent with the true meaning of the above substantive rule of law. Unlike the law of administrative lawsuit, the law of administrative trial rules both of illigality and injustice. The injustice is concerned with interest in fact. But the above law describes the locus standi as 'who has interest in law'. Thus all the interests in fact is ruled out of the adaption of the law. The above Article 9 of the law of administrative trial should be revised at once. The locus standi should be expressed like ‘who has interest worth protecting’. The administrative trial should be used by even those who have only interest in fact.

일조갈등의 豫防的 解消를 위한 立法論的 硏究

李相千(Lee Sang-Cheon) 동아대학교 법학연구소 2009 東亞法學 Vol.- No.45

The control of sunshine in building code is carried out through the conception of space i.e. height and distance, but the distribution of sunshine in the field of civil law is carried out by the hours of lasting sunshine. The sunshine conflicts are caused by the differences between the two means to guarantee sunshine. The sunshine interests have the characters of ‘game of zero sum’. Thus the essential function of the criteria of permitting building in concern with sunshine is the reasonable distribution of sunshine interests. From the above differences, the function of sunshine distribution through the existing building code is being carried out in a restricted degree. As in case of Japan, there are a little differences in the criteria of guaranteeing sunshine between civil law and administrative law. The standard law of building performance of Japan has the article that it should be decided by the hours of lasting shadow whether the right to enjoy sunshine infringed or not, but the case law by civil court has made decisions about shunshine infringement chiefly by the hours of lasting sunshine. Therefore, there are little severe conflicts surrounding sunshine in Japan, but in Korea there are so much severe cases of sunshine conflicts as the cases of injuction of building prohibition. Firstly, the presence of the differences between the two legal criteria dealing with sunshine in the above two legal fields is not consistent with our national legal feeling. we don't think it reasonable that the lawful building observing the criteria of permitting building is illegal in private law. Secondly, the existing building code is breaking the legal theory of ‘prohibition of inclusive mandate legistlation’, and the lower administrative legistlation doesn't go with the upper one. Thirdly, the negligence of the presence of the above differences come to the ‘nonperformance of necessary legistlation’ in theory of constitutional law. The differences should be removed at once. It is impossible and unreasonable that the criteria of sunshine in civil law be adjusted to the criteria of permitting building in building code. The criteria of permitting building should be revised according to the criteria of reasonable distribution of sunshine of case law in civil law. By that, in consideration of the revision, the civil court wouldn't accept any injunction of prohibiting building against the building under construction keeping the criteria of permitting building as long as under no special circumstances. If so, the sunshine conflicts would be much decreased, the new legistlation would be consistent with our national legal feeling, elevate the national spirits of observing law, and be helpful to the social peace.