부동산등기신청에 대한 등기관의 주의의무

최명구 한국민사법학회 2006 民事法學 Vol.31 No.-

Obligations of a Registrar at the time of Real Estate Registration Application The Right of the registrar concerning investigation about real estate registration is divided into formal and substantial. The formal right is related to the investigation whether the application of real estate registration is lawful in registration's process. But the substantial right is connected with the investigation about the substantial effect including the reasons of registration application. The Real Estate Registration Law in Korea provides the formal right concerning registration in principle. It is important problems in this right how to do according to investigation. The paper, which has the commentary on a case (2003Da13038), provides the investigation about documents and attendance and shows the responsibility of registrar if he makes a mistake about this investigation. According to this case the registrar can investigate only the authenticity of the submitted documents. There is also room for doubt that the submitted documents is truthful. For the authenticity of the submitted documents the formal investigation right of the registrar should be more strengthened. In addition, through the public trust of real estate registration the parties and the third parties suffer no damages. Under the current law systems and concerned administration systems we need to minimize damage and the unreliable real estate registration. For this realization the right of the registrar need to be strengthened more.

국가인권기구의 역할과 우리 국가인권위원회에 대한 평가

박선욱 가천대학교 법학연구소 2013 가천법학 Vol.6 No.4

2001년 4월 30일 국가인권위원회법안이 국회를 통과함으로써 국가인권위원회(이하 ‘인권위’)는 탄생하였다. 인권위는 유엔의 지침에 따라 인권의 보호와 증진 기능, 침해조사·구제권한. 법제개선권고권한, 인권교육권한 등을 가진 독립기관으로 설립되었다. 인권위가 국민의 인권의식을 신장하는데 기여하였다는 것은 누구도 부인할 수 없다. 그 동안 인권위는 집회 및 시위의 자유, 사상과 양심의 자유, 노동자의 권리, 외국인 동성애자 등 사회적 소수자의 인권문제에 관하여 권고나 의견표명을 하며 사회적 문제에 관하여 관심을 가져왔다. 그리고 인권침해 및 차별행위에 대하여 국민이 진정을 하게 되면 이를 조사하고 구제함으로써 국가공권력에 의한 인권침해를 감시·예방하고자 하였다. 국가인권위원회법 제1조에 따라 설립된 인권위는 모든 개인이 가지는 불가침의 기본적 인권을 보호하고 그 수준을 향상시킴으로써 인간으로서의 존엄과 가치를 구현하고 민주적 기본질서의 확립에 이바지하는 데 기여하여야 한다. 진정의 대상에 대해서는 인권전반의 문제를 다루고, 보다 강제력 있는 조사권을 부여함과 동시에 조사권 제한 범위를 적절히 조정하고 분명히할 필요가 있다. 인권침해 구제를 위해서는, 사안에 따라서 시정명령권이나 다양한 구제조치를 취할 수 있도록 해야 한다. 정부에 대하여 조언하고 권고하는 기능은 인권침해 조사와 구제 못지않게 중요한 기능이다. 국가인권기구는 단지 정부의 업무를 지원하는 차원이 아니라, 적극적이고, 독립적으로 인권관련 법안과 법률 등을 검토하고, 개선을 권고하며, 정부의 관행을 개선하는데 노력하여야 한다. 그러한 과정 속에서 인권위는 더욱 신뢰를 얻을 수 있고, 조직과 예산상 확충도 실현할 수 있을 것이다. National Human Rights Institutions play an ongoing advisory role regarding human rights matters, at both the national and international levels. Their primary role is to monitor human rights abuses perpetrated by the actions of private entities and individuals as well as governmental conduct. Promoting these national institutions has emerged as one of the UN's most important strategies for improving the protection of human rights in the region. The UN General Assembly endorsed guiding principles regarding the status, powers, and functioning of national human rights institutions, which are known as the Paris Principles. These principles constitute the fundamental guidelines, which the UN uses to assist countries in establishing national human rights bodies. UN support has not been the only impetus for the rise of these institutions. The creation of National Human Rights Commission of Korea, which came into effect in 2001, specifically encourages the establishment and improvement of appropriate national institutions entrusted with the promotion and protection of the human rights and freedoms. The recognition of the need for national institutions as well as the general changes in the Korean political and social landscape and growing international pressure have greatly increased the profile of human rights issues within Korea. This article explores the activities of National Human Rights Commission of Korea, providing an analysis of the standards and principles that underline the U.N. initiatives in setting up National Human Rights Institutions. Finally, this article suggests some productive roles that National Human Rights Commission of Korea might play in protecting Korean human rights.

국세기본법과 관세법상 중복조사 금지에 관한 비교연구 - 대법원 2015. 2. 26. 선고 2014두12062 판결 및 대법원 2020. 2. 13. 선고 2015두745 판결을 중심으로-

백혜영 대한변호사협회 2021 人權과 正義 : 大韓辯護士協會誌 Vol.- No.501

In principle, dual investigations should be prohibited because they seriously infringe on the freedom of business and legal stability of taxpayers, as well as lead to abuse of tax investigation rights. The Framework Act on National Taxes and the Customs Act explicitly set out regulations on the prohibition of dual investigations. Regarding the prohibition of dual investigations, issue such as ‘a method of determining the duplication of investigation to which the principle of prohibition of dual investigation is applied’ is usually raised. In this study, precedents related to the Framework Act on National Tax (Supreme Court 2014du12062 judgment, etc.) and customs law precedent judgments (Supreme Court 2015du745 judgment) were examined in turn on the issue. In particular, the 2015du745 decision of the Supreme Court is significant in that it is the first Supreme Court ruling on the prohibition of dual investigations under the Customs Act. There is a difference between the two laws in the above issue regarding the judgment of ‘duplication of investigation’. This is because there is a difference in wording, such as the Framework Act on National Taxes using ‘same item of taxes’ and ‘same taxable period’ as the criteria for determining redundancy, and the Customs Act using ‘the relevant case’ as the criterion. At this time, attention should be paid to the interpretation in that ‘the relevant case’, which is the standard for determining redundancy under the Customs Act, is an indeterminate concept open to interpretation. Judging from the meaning of the Taxpayer Protection Ordinance of the Korea Customs Service, the prohibited overlapping investigation means “re-investigation in the same field of customs and legality and the same period subject to investigation.” In the case of the Supreme Court’s 2015du745 rulings, the customs authorities chose a different method of determining the tax price in detail in each preceding and trailing investigation, but eventually conducted a “reexamination of the same customs clearance legal field.” Consequently, the conclusion of this judgment, which constitutes an illegal duplicate investigation, is reasonable in light of the above Korea Customs Service ordinance. In order to clarify the meaning of ‘the relevant case’, which is the standard for determining the overlap of investigations under the Customs Act, a legislative review was also conducted, such as whether the contents of the Korea Customs Service ordinance need to be reflected in the Customs Act. It is important for both taxpayers and tax authorities to familiarize themselves with the attitudes of case law regarding dual investigation. If the taxpayer determines that the investigation by the taxation authority falls under a “dual investigation” in light of the existing precedent attitude, the taxpayer can obtain relief by using the taxpayer protection system or by filing a lawsuit or a trial to cancel the imposition of the imposition. In addition, the tax authorities can judge whether the above taxpayer’s argument is valid by referring to the existing precedent attitudes. 중복조사는 납세자의 영업의 자유나 법적 안정성 등을 심각하게 침해할 뿐만 아니라 세무조사권의 남용으로 이어질 우려가 있으므로 원칙적으로 금지되어야 한다. 국세기본법, 관세법은 중복조사 금지에 관한 명시적 규정을 두고 있다. 본 연구에서는 조사의 ‘중복성’을 판단하는 방법에 관하여 판시하고 있는 국세기본법 관련 판례(대법원 2014두12062 판결 등)와 관세법 관련 판례(대법원 2015두745 판결)를 차례로 살펴보았다. 특히, 위 대법원 2015두745 판결의 경우에는 관세법상 금지되는 중복조사에 해당한다고 판단한 최초의 대법원 판결이라는 점에서 의미가 크다. 한편, ‘조사의 중복성’ 판단 기준에 있어서는 국세기본법과 관세법 사이에 차이가 있다. 국세기본법은 ‘같은 세목’과 ‘같은 과세기간’을 중복성 판단의 기준으로 삼고 있고, 관세법은 ‘해당 사안’을 그 기준으로 삼고 있는 등 문언상 차이가 있기 때문이다. 이때 관세법상 중복성 판단의 기준인 ‘해당 사안’은 해석의 여지가 있는 불확정개념이라는 점에서 그 해석에 유의해야 한다. 관세청 납세자보호 훈령을 통해 그 의미를 유추해보건대, 금지되는 중복조사란 ‘같은 통관적법성분야 및 같은 조사대상기간에 대한 재조사’를 의미한다. 위 대법원 2015두745 판결의 경우를 보면, 관세당국이 선행·후행 각 조사에서 세부적인 과세가격 결정방법을 달리 택하기는 하였으나, 결국 ‘과세가격에 관한 사항’을 조사하였다는 점에서 ‘같은 통관적법성분야에 대한 재조사’를 한 것으로 볼 수밖에 없는바, 위법한 중복조사에 해당한다고 본 대상판결의 결론은 위와 같은 관세청 훈령에 비추어 보더라도 타당하다. 한편, 관세법상 ‘해당 사안’의 의미를 명확히 한다는 차원에서 ‘관세청 납세자보호에 관한 훈령’ 및 ‘기업심사 운영에 관한 훈령’의 내용이 관세법령으로 상향 입법될 필요성은 없는지 등의 입법론적 검토도 함께 하였다. 중복조사에 관한 판례의 태도를 숙지하는 것은 납세자 및 과세당국 모두에게 중요하다. 납세자로서는 기존 판례 태도에 비추어 과세당국의 조사가 ‘중복조사’에 해당한다고 판단할 경우에 납세자보호관 제도를 이용하거나 부과처분 취소 심판 및 소송을 제기하는 등의 방법으로 구제받을 수 있고, 과세당국으로서는 그와 같은 납세자의 주장이 타당한지 판단함에 있어서 기존 판례의 태도를 참고할 수 있기 때문이다.

공정거래위원회의 조사권 행사와 형사절차상 원칙과의 관계

강수진(Kang, Soo - Jin) 대검찰청 2012 형사법의 신동향 Vol.0 No.37

최근 들어 공정거래위원회의 행정처분은 형사처벌에 버금가는 위하력을 가지는 반면, 공정거래법위반 사건의 조사 등 법집행에 대한 장애 요소도 증가하고 있다. 이는 단순히 국가권력과 시민의 방어권 간의 상호충돌로 이해할 것이 아니라, 공정거래위원회의 조사권의 범위와 한계에 대한 명확한 규명이 이루어지지 않았기 때문에 발생하는 규범적 혼란상황으로 이해할 수 있다. 본고는 공정거래법상 조사의 범위와 한계를 형사절차상원칙과의 관계를 중심으로 검토함으로써 위와 같은 규범적 혼란상황을 해결하기 위한 시도를 하였다. 공정거래법상 조사는 원칙적으로 간접적 강제력을 수반한 임의조사이다. 공정거래법상 조사에는 출석요구 및 의견청취, 자료제출명령 및 영치, 현장조사, 감정인 지정 등이 있다. 대표적으로 현장조사는 사업장에의 출입, 사업장 내 특정장소의 점유, 사업장 내 업무 등 확인을 위한 탐색 등 행위가 수반되기 때문에 헌법상 영장주의와의 관계가 문제될 여지가 가장 큰 조사유형이다. 현장조사 역시 임의조사이므로, 동의의 임의성을 조건으로 영장주의가 배제되는 영역으로 볼 것이나, 동의의 임의성 여부에 관한 판단이 문제될 것이고, 무엇보다 과태료, 더 나아가 형사처벌에 의한 동의의 강제가 적법한지가 문제될 수 있다. 과태료에 의한 강제는 일반적인 행정조사에 있어서 널리 사용되고 있고, 간접적 강제수단으로서 상당성의 한계를 벗어나지 않았다고 볼 수 있으나, 신설된 조사방해죄에 의한 형사처벌 위협은 조사대상자로부터 동의 여부에 관한 선택의 기회를 박탈하는 결과를 초래한다. 현장에서의 자료나 물건의 수집 역시 강제처분으로서의 수색과의 구별이 어려우므로 수집 대상의 특정, 사전 고지, 무제한적인 대상 확대 및 수색 금지 등 일반적 원칙의 정립이 필요하며, 특히 대량 전자정보에 관한 포괄적 수집은 금지 된다고 볼 것이다. 공정거래법상 조사의 목적은 원칙적으로 행정처분을 목적으로 하나 고발에 의하여 언제든지 형사절차로 이행될 수 있고, 공정거래위원회가 조사절차 중 수집한 자료는 언제든지 형사소송의 증거로 사용될 수 있다. 따라서 실질적으로 형사상 불리한 진술에 해당하는 경우 진술거부권이 보장될 필요가 있고, 사후 형사소송절차에서 증거로 제출되는 경우 형사소송법상 증거능력을 갖추었는지에 관한 엄격한 심사가 필요하다. As increased number of cases are investigated by Korea Fair Trade Commission(KFTC), huge amount of surcharges and corrective measures are imposed by KFTC which is called “Economic Prosecutors”. On the other hand, more and more obstruction cases are being reported at the center of which lies big companies. Under the Korean Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act(MRFTA), most offenses such as cartel conduct could be the subject of both administrative surcharges and criminal fines or imprisonment though KFTC does not have criminal investigation power or power to use coercive measures including warrant. From the investigated companies’ viewpoint, there is no signal whether the investigation aims at administrative surcharges or criminal imprisonment and when the original administrative procedure shifts to the criminal stage. Every evidence collected by KFTC inspectors could be submitted to criminal court. It means that KFTC’s investigating power could be useless as well as borderless. These fators partly explain why there is a confusion on the nature of KFTC’s investigation power and why conflicts between Investigating power and rights to defense grow bigger. In this paper, by looking into both the general nature of investigating power and the specific legal issues raised in the real practise, applying basic principles of Constitution and criminal procedure, I tried to suggest some ideas to solve this ambiguous phase. Investigation methods prescribed under the MPFTA include summoning, ordering to report or submitting information, entering the office or place of business, etc. Failure to meet the proper requests by KFTC without justifiable reasons shall be charged with administrative or criminal fine or imprisonment. The legal nature of KFTC’s investigation power is regarded as voluntary in general with the indirect measures of coercion. But in some areas, whether this voluntary nature is maintained is doubtable. For example, entering the office or place of business accompanies the intrusion of the residence and search of the property, which is approved only under the warrant issued by the competent court unless there is a consent of the owner of promises. So, the voluntariness of the consent should be the most important factor judging the legality of the investigation. In that regards, coercion by criminalizing obstruction of the office inspection, especially criminalizing the act of just objecting or delaying the entrance of inspectors should be reexamined. This obstruction clause results in depriving the citizen of the right to opt for not being investigated, which is contrary to the voluntary nature of KFTC's investigating right.

개인정보 및 사생활보호를 위한 민간조사원 조사권의 한계 설정

이주락;최종윤 경찰대학교 2012 경찰학연구 Vol.12 No.1

This study places its emphasis on the protection of personal information and privacy, which is the major concern in the process of adopting the private investigation system in Korea. Moreover, the legal or other practical issues related to the infringement of personal information and privacy are reviewed while efficient ways to set the proper scope of private investigation to minimize the infringement are discussed. The detailed examination on the issues of personal information and privacy reveals that violation of portrait rights, wiretapping, invasion of privacy or restrictions on personal freedom due to tailing and stakeout, and intrusion on the personal rights caused by excessive collection of personal information and its overuse are the major expected problems. Therefore, in order to minimize the intrusion into personal information and private life, this study proposes the following sets of work scope for the private investigators. Firstly, wiretapping should be prohibited; in other words, private investigators are not allowed to trespass on a private area of the person being investigated. Secondly, shooting photos needs to be sanctioned as it is a crucial part of the investigatory tasks. However, it should be limited to the shooting in public areas of those who are considered possible evidence of a case. Thirdly, tailing and stakeout should be legalized as the vital components to perform relevant duties; however, they should only be permitted in open places and should be stopped when requested by the person being investigated. Furthermore, private investigators are prohibited to collect any personal information outside of their work scope. Finally, disclosure of the personal information acquired over the course of investigations to a third party is prohibited, and all the relevant information should be discarded after termination of investigations.

개인정보 및 사생활보호를 위한 민간조사원 조사권의 한계 설정

이주락(Lee Ju Lak),최종윤(Choi Jong Yun) 경찰대학 경찰학연구편집위원회 2012 경찰학연구 Vol.12 No.1

This study places its emphasis on the protection of personal information and privacy, which is the major concern in the process of adopting the private investigation system in Korea. Moreover, the legal or other practical issues related to the infringement of personal information and privacy are reviewed while efficient ways to set the proper scope of private investigation to minimize the infringement are discussed. The detailed examination on the issues of personal information and privacy reveals that violation of portrait rights, wiretapping, invasion of privacy or restrictions on personal freedom due to tailing and stakeout, and intrusion on the personal rights caused by excessive collection of personal information and its overuse are the major expected problems. Therefore, in order to minimize the intrusion into personal information and private life, this study proposes the following sets of work scope for the private investigators. Firstly, wiretapping should be prohibited; in other words, private investigators are not allowed to trespass on a private area of the person being investigated. Secondly, shooting photos needs to be sanctioned as it is a crucial part of the investigatory tasks. However, it should be limited to the shooting in public areas of those who are considered possible evidence of a case. Thirdly, tailing and stakeout should be legalized as the vital components to perform relevant duties; however, they should only be permitted in open places and should be stopped when requested by the person being investigated. Furthermore, private investigators are prohibited to collect any personal information outside of their work scope. Finally, disclosure of the personal information acquired over the course of investigations to a third party is prohibited, and all the relevant information should be discarded after termination of investigations.

방북 한국인의 신변안전 및 인권보호 강화문제

제성호 중앙법학회 2008 中央法學 Vol.10 No.3

A female South Korean tourist visiting Mt. Geumgang and taking a walk peacefully around the tourism site was shot and killed by a North Korean soldier back in June 2008. Now this shooting incident not only has become a major cause of deadlock between the South and the North, but also offers an opportunity to discuss again effective measures for securing personal safety of South Koreans visiting North Korea and protecting their human rights. In short, we should persuade North Korea into making a provision in the relevant laws to the effect that soldiers should not shoot or murder any unarmed civilians in the tourism area near the Korean Demilitarized Zone(DMZ). In case North Korean laws and regulations are violated by a South Korean visitor, we should have a right to investigate the facts in order that proper responsible actions may be followed by the authorities concerned of North Korea. In particular, we should specify what "severe violation of laws and regulations" are in the application of the Inter-Korean Agreement on Immigration Control and Stay in North Korea. Organizing a South-North Joint Committee will be a necessary to accomplish these tasks. In addition, when North Korea investigate alleged violations of its laws and regulations perpetrated by South Koreans, the South Korean government should work out their human rights protection strengthening measures. A female South Korean tourist visiting Mt. Geumgang and taking a walk peacefully around the tourism site was shot and killed by a North Korean soldier back in June 2008. Now this shooting incident not only has become a major cause of deadlock between the South and the North, but also offers an opportunity to discuss again effective measures for securing personal safety of South Koreans visiting North Korea and protecting their human rights. In short, we should persuade North Korea into making a provision in the relevant laws to the effect that soldiers should not shoot or murder any unarmed civilians in the tourism area near the Korean Demilitarized Zone(DMZ). In case North Korean laws and regulations are violated by a South Korean visitor, we should have a right to investigate the facts in order that proper responsible actions may be followed by the authorities concerned of North Korea. In particular, we should specify what "severe violation of laws and regulations" are in the application of the Inter-Korean Agreement on Immigration Control and Stay in North Korea. Organizing a South-North Joint Committee will be a necessary to accomplish these tasks. In addition, when North Korea investigate alleged violations of its laws and regulations perpetrated by South Koreans, the South Korean government should work out their human rights protection strengthening measures.

세무조사와 행정확인의 경계 설정 및 행정확인의 개선방안에 관한 소고

김영순 한국세무사회 부설 한국조세연구소 2020 세무와 회계 연구 Vol.9 No.1

As the society becomes more intricate, the need for diversified and unofficial administrative guidance is also increased in the field of ​​tax administration. This administrative guidance is premised on the that there is no disadvantage when taxpayers refuse to cooperate. There are three types of cooperative administrative guidance in the tax administration area. First type gives guidance as to the contents of filing and necessary measures such as corporate tax filing. The second type is an administrative guidance that reviews and corrects the tax return filed by taxpayers. For fair taxation, the tax return must be analyzed, and the tax amount must be determined or rectified if it is incorrect or under-declared. This type can be divided into two areas. One is a request to for a simple clarification of the transaction as a business operator or trading partner. This is a kind of voluntary administrative cooperation. The other is a request to taxpayer for the purpose of reviewing and correcting the tax return. In such a case, it is not clear whether it is tax investigation or not. The Supreme Court judged by substance rather than by name or form. In general, the elements of distinction are period and frequency, location, direct or indirect contact and so on. However, it is not clear. In order to reduce confusion and protect the rights of taxpayers, it is necessary to establish a new form examination like written examination, different from tax investigation. Also, it is reasonable to establish contents, methods, procedural rules, and rights protection rules of written examination to achieve fair taxation through efficient investigations and protect taxpayers' right. 사회가 복잡․다양해지면서 비공식적․협력적 행정작용의 필요성은 세무행정의 영역에서도 나타나고 있다. 이를 행정지도라고도 하며, 상대방의 동의나 협력이 반드시 필요하고, 거부했을 때 불이익이 없어야 한다는 것을 전제로 하고 있다. 세무행정 영역에서 협력적 행정작용의 유형은 크게 두 가지로 구분할 수 있다. 첫째는 법인세 신고안내와 같이 신고내용 및 필요한 조치 내용을 안내하는 유형으로서, 이는 행정지도에 해당한다. 둘째 유형은 신고내용확인 및 과세자료 처리에 의한 사실관계를 확인하는 행정작용이다. 공평과세를 위해서는 신고내용을 분석하여 미신고하거나 과소신고한 경우에 세액을 결정 또는 경정하여야 한다. 이를 위해 과세관청은 납세자에게 해명자료를 제출하라고 안내하거나, 현장확인을 실시한다. 이 유형은 다시 두 개의 영역으로 구분할 수 있는데, 첫째 영역은 거래 상대방에게 거래내용을 단순히 확인할 목적으로 하는 서면 안내나 금융거래내역 확인, 사업자등록 확인을 위한 현장확인 등을 들 수 있다. 이는 사업자나 거래 상대방으로서 거래 내용의 진실을 소명해 달라는 요청에 불과하며, 자발적인 행정협조를 구하는 것으로서, 행정지도에 포섭될 여지가 있다. 한편, 둘째 영역은 질문조사 상대방에 대한 과세표준과 세액을 경정할 목적으로 상당한 시일 동안 접촉하여 사실관계를 확인하는 경우이다. 이 영역은 세무조사와의 구별이 가장 애매한 부분으로서, 기존에는 정식의 세무조사로 보지 않았다. 그러나 대법원에서 세무조사인지 여부는 명칭이 아니라 실질에 따라 판단해야 한다고 보기 시작하면서, 세무조사와의 구별이 모호해지기 시작하였다. 대체로 목적 요소, 기간 및 횟수 요소, 장소 요소, 방법 요소, 자료 요소, 강제 요소 등을 종합하여 구별을 할 수밖에 없다. 그러나 일선에서 혼란을 줄이고 납세자의 권리를 보호하기 위해서 단순확인과 서면확인조사로 구분하여 입법을 할 필요가 있다. 서면확인조사는 정식의 세무조사와는 다른 간이한 형태로 서면으로만 조사하는 방식이다. 서면확인조사의 근거, 내용, 방식, 절차적 규정, 권리보호 규정 등을 신설하여 납세자의 권리를 보호하면서 동시에 효율적인 조사를 통한 공평과세를 실현하는 것이 타당하다.

국민건강보험공단 조사 권한의 문제점과 개선방안

임지연,김진숙,문석균 대한의사협회 2024 대한의사협회지 Vol.67 No.8

Background: Several bills were proposed during the 20th and 21st National Assemblies to grant special judicial police powers to employees of the National Health Insurance Corporation (NHIC) to improve the low recovery rate of unfair profits collected by non-medical practitioner hospitals. The Ministry of Health and Welfare made a pre-announcement of legislation regarding the revision of the Enforcement Decree of the Medical Law, aiming to delegate certain enforcement responsibilities, including investigations into illegally established hospitals. This study discusses the contents and issues related to the bill, focusing on the revision of the Enforcement Decree of Medical Law and the bill proposed by the 21st National Assembly. Furthermore, it proposes improvements to address the challenges posed by non-medical practitioner hospitals. Current Concepts: We pointed out concerns regarding the bill to grant special judicial police powers to NHIC employees, such as the potential infringement of basic rights due to a lack of expertise among these special judicial police, a reversal of procedural thinking, challenges in identifying illegal hospitals, the appropriateness of granting investigative rights to NHIC employees, and the risk of abuse of these rights. Discussion and Conclusion: We propose strengthening the establishment, operations, and supervision of medical corporations; introducing a preliminary monitoring system for the establishment of medical institutions through branches of medical personnel organizations; and implementing a leniency program.

보험사기 억제를 위한 입법방향에 관한 연구

김연수 ( Yeon Soo Kim ) 한국경찰학회 2010 한국경찰학회보 Vol.12 No.4

In generally speaking, the insurance fraud includes all the fraudulent actions against the insurance company. Insurance fraud, which adds and estimated 2.4 trillion won per year to the total insurance damages in the Korea, is and extremely serious problem for consumers, regulators, and insurance companies. This paper reviews the foreign insurance fraud prevention acts and Korean insurance fraud legislation trends. And this study aimed for suggestion of legal base such as, ① the definition of insurance fraud, ② legal provision of punishments, ③ basis statue of investigation, ④ practical provisions. First of all, insurance fraud is regulated by the article 347 of Criminal Law, which regulating fraud. But the crime of insurance fraud should be stipulated in the Korean Criminal law, distinguishing it from the general crime of fraud. Also, the legal authority of insurance fraud investigation of the member of the special investigation unit in each insurance company is strongly needed for the effective investigation. Therefore, the current article 162 of the Insurance Business Act should be revised. I recommend that 1) an anti-insurance fraud article should be established in Criminal Law; 2) the industry increase the number of special investigators to discover fraudulent applications and claims; 3) the permanent body to investigate and prosecute insurance should be established.