中國通用航空立法若干問題硏究

란상 ( Luan Shuang ) 한국항공우주정책·법학회(구 한국항공우주법학회) 2016 한국항공우주정책·법학회지 Vol.31 No.2

通用航空與運輸航空是民航業的兩翼。中國運輸航空發展迅速,2005 年已成爲僅次于美國的世界第二大航空運輸系統,而通用航空却遠遠落后于世界平均水平,不能适應經濟建設和社會發展的需要。中國經濟轉型和結構調整使通用航空獲得了前所未有的廣闊市場空間,通用航空的發展前景令人期待。通航産業的發展需要法律的支持,中國通用航空法律現狀遠遠落后于現實需求。加快中國通用航空立法,需要有科學的立法理念。首先,立法必?促進通航産業發展。通用航空將會成爲中國擴大內需與促進就業、推動國內經濟發展的新興産業。立足于促進通用航空産業發展的觀念,根据國家的産業規劃,制定修改相關的法律、法規。理順空防安全與産業發展的關系,全面推進低空空域管理改革,以求提高空域資源利用率,分類劃設空域,簡化審批程序,加强運行管理。推進基礎設施布局建設,引導各地通用航空産業差異化協同發展。建立通用航空聯合監管机制,重新劃分中國空中管理机構的職責,構建机構明確、定位淸晳、職責分明的立法、執法、司法體系,開啓中國通用航空産業法制化管理新常態。其次,從管制向管制與服務幷重。借鑒美國的做法,考慮通用航空業的特殊性,立法應兼顧管制與服務功能。例如,淡化行政許可與市場監管,對通用航空實行“准則制”和“審批制”兩種不同的管理制度。復次,注重社會利益。通過立法完善社會救援机制。立法中需要明確通用航空活動的實施者對保護環境和生態平衡的義務,保證環境保護及生態平衡的社會利益的實現。最后,與國際航空准則接軌。修改與與國際准則不一致的地方,掃除國際合作的障碍。明確通航立法的基本原則。一是協調性原則。實現民用航空與通用航空的協調,軍用與民用之間的協調,各部門之間的協調。二是針對性原則。通用航空具有自身的規律和特殊性,需要專門性的法律法規加以規范。三是效率性原則。爲實現通用航空具的時間价値和空間价値,應完善空域開放、通用机場修建、通航運營、法規執行等方面規定。四是安全性原則。平衡中國空域資源得到最大化利用和由此給中國的國家利益和社會安全帶來的潛在威脅,建立完善的保險制度作爲安全性的防范和保障性措施。構建統一的法律體系。當前中國通用航空法律體系主要由國家立法、行政法規、民航規章三個層次構成,這三個層次都存在着一定的問題,主要是內容過于?統,保障措施不明確、實施細則有待完善,缺乏針對性和靈活性,運行管理的嚴密性和運行標准的統一性方面有較大欠缺等。應建立一套以法律爲核心、行政法規、行業規章、實施細則、産業政策和地方法規共同組成的法律法規體系。建議修改《民航法》,完善通用航空法律;制定法規《通用航空産業發展條例》;加快我國通用航空規章立改廢工作,增强規章協調性和統一性。 General aviation and air transport are two wings of the civil aviation industry. Chinese air transport is developing rapidly, and has become the world second air transport system only second to US since 2005. However, Chinese civil aviation is far behind the world average level, and cannot meet requirements of economic construction and social development. The transition and structural adjustment of Chinese economy provide the general aviation with a unprecedented broad market. The prospect of general aviation is promising and anticipated. The development of general aviation industry needs the legislative supports, and the current legislative conditions of Chinese general aviation are undoubtedly far behind the realistic requirements. Accelerating the legislation in Chinese general aviation industry requires scientific legislation concept. First, Legislation must promote development of general aviation industry. The general aviation will serves as a Chinese emerging industry that boosts domestic demand, promotes employment and expedite domestic economic development. We should, based on both the concept of promoting the industrial development of general aviation and national industrial planning, enact and rectify relative laws and regulations. And we should also straighten out the relationship between aviation security and industrial development and promote the revolution of low-altitude airspace management in an all-round way, in order to improve the utilization rate of airspace resources, classify and establish airspace, simplify examination and approval procedure and intensify operation management. In addition, what we should do is to expedite the infrastructure layout construction, guide the differentiated but coordinated development of general aviation industries in various areas, establish a united supervision mechanism of general aviation, redistrict the responsibilities of Chinese Air Control Agency and set up legislation, law enforcement and judicial systems with clarified institutions, clear positioning and classified responsibilities, so as to usher in a new era of the legislative management of Chinese general aviation industry. Second, shift the focus from regulations to both regulations and services. Considering the particularity of the general aviation, we should use American practices for reference and take into account both regulation and service functions when enacting general aviation laws. For example, we should reduce administrative licensing and market supervision, and adopt “criteria” and “approval” management systems for non-commercial and commercial aviation. Furthermore, pay attention to social benefits. Complete social rescuing mechanism through legislation. It should be clarified in legislation that general aviation operators should take the responsibilities of, and ensure to realize social benefits of environmental protection and ecological balance .Finally, rise in line with international standards. Modify Chinese regulations which is inconsistent with international ones to remove barriers to international cooperation. Specify basic legislative principles. One is the principle of coordination. Realize coordination between the civil aviation and general aviation, between military aviation and civil aviation, and among departments. Two is the principle of pertinence. The general aviation has its own rules and specialties, needing to be standardized using specialized laws and regulations. Three is the principle of efficiency. To realize time and space values of general aviation, we should complete rules in aerospace openness, general aviation airport construction, general aviation operations, and regulation enforcement. Four is the principle of security. Balance the maximum use of resources of Chinese airspace and the according potential threats to Chinese national interests and social security, and establish a complete insurance system which functions as security defense and indemnificatory measure. Establish a unified legal system. Currently, the system of Chinese general aviation laws consists of national legislation, administrative laws and regulations and civil aviation regulations (CAR). Some problems exist in three components of the system, including too general content, unclear guarantee measures, incomplete implementation details, and lacking corresponding pertinence and flexibility required by general aviation regulations, stringency of operation management and standards, and uniformity of standards. A law and regulation system, centered on laws and consisting of administrative laws regulations, industrial regulations, implementation details, industrial policies and local laws and regulations, should be established. It is suggested to modify the Civil Aviation Law to make general aviation laws complete, enact the Regulations of General Aviation Development, and accelerate the establishment, modification and abolition of Chinese general aviation laws to intensify the coordination and uniformity of regulations.

입법체계상(立法體系上) 기본법의 본질에 관한 연구 -일본의 기본법을 중심으로-

박정훈 ( Jeong Hun Park ) 법조협회 2009 法曹 Vol.58 No.12

Korea has adopted Japanese legislation of the basic act, and there are lots of laws named as basic act. Basic act in Japan, in general, means a form of law that has exceptional standing and legal effect compared by general law. Moreover, law named as basic act provides a basic guideline, a principle, a plan, a standard, a summary, and it has a fixed, common feature: law as an intermediary. Thus, the basic act has the purpose to connect the constitution and individual law, and it has a role to give a concrete form to the constitution. The constitution and basic act complement each other. The background of the basic act in Japan had arisen from the legislation policy to establish law and order by stages where Japan had the only constitution after the war, and there were no law in detail. Therefore, the basic act in Japan provides an ideology on the state system and policy, a basic guideline, and it provides that the government forces to do by its basic guideline. What is more, the basic act consists of elements to enforce administrative policy complying the purpose and content of the basic act. Thus, the basic act has the same, legal status as other laws since both the basic act and others are law. However, in practice, the basic act has a superior standing as a mother law since it suggests a directivity of policies in the said field, and it directs and induces other laws and administration. Furthermore, in the practice of Japanese policy of legislation, the principle of superiority of the basic act has established as a certified custom of legislation. Moreover, Korean legislation of the basic act is similar to one of the basic act in Japan. However, in addition to the purity as policy legislation in Japan, Korean basic act provides elements of regulation as applicant law. Thus, the basic act in Korea has the problem in the vagueness for the purpose of legislation, and loss of meaning as policy legislation by the provisions of regulation as a method. This dissertation concentrates on reviewing Japanese legislation of the basic act in the field of formality and content of provisions, a legal status, and the relationship with other laws to examine the problem of the basic act in Korea as a form of legislation, and grope for directivity to reform legislation.

헌법재판소의 결정을 통해 본 입법의 원칙

홍완식(Hong, Wan Sik) 한국헌법학회 2009 憲法學硏究 Vol.15 No.4

입법자의 입법형성의 자유 또는 입법재량에는 일정한 한계가 있다. 즉, 입법자의 입법형성권의 한계는 입법자의 자기구속의 사유가 되는데, 이러한 입법형성권의 한계는 입법을 함에 있어서 입법자가 준수하여야 하는 입법의 원칙이기도 하 다. 입법형성권의 한계로 논의되는 입법의 원칙은 입법자가 일관된 기준과 원칙에 따라서 입법활동을 하여야 하며 합리적 근거 없이 이러한 일관된 원칙에서 벗어나는 경우에는 이른바 ‘입법자의 자기구속의 법리’(Selbstbindung des Gesetzgebers)에 위반하는 것으로서 위헌의 문제가 발생할 수 있다. 이러한 입법의 원칙은 법령의 위헌여부에 대한 헌법재판소의 규범통제를 위한 사후기준이기도 하지만, 입법의 원칙은 의회의 입법과정에서 법령의 합헌성과 타당성 심사의 기준으로서도 적용할 수 있다. 구체적인 사안에 따라 다르지만, 헌법재판소는 대체로 입법자의 형성의 자유를 광범위하게 보아 규범통제권을 자제하는 입장을 보여왔지만, 헌법재판소가 결정을 통하여 제시한 입법의 원칙은 법률의 결함을 치유하고 바람직한 법률 또는 좋은 법률로 나아가기 위한 기준이 될 수 있다. 다만, 입법자는 헌법재판소가 형성해 온 위헌법률심사의 기준에 머물 것이 아니라, 보다 적극적으로 더 나은 입법의 가능성과 기준을 모색해야 한다. 헌법재판소의 결정을 통해 볼 수 있는 입법의 원칙으로는 사안적합성원칙, 보충성원칙, 체계정당성원칙, 포괄적 위임입법 금지의 원칙, 기본권존중의 원칙, 헌법의 기본원리·기본제도의 존중, 평등원칙, 과잉금지원칙, 과소금지원칙, 신뢰보호원칙, 명확성원칙, 적법절차원칙 등을 들 수 있다. 이러한 입법원칙들은 입법자 스스로 규범의 현실적합성과 헌법합치성을 점검하는데 있어서 유용한 기준이 되리라 본다. The purpose of this study is to provide the principles of legislation to be respected in the legislative process. The principles of legislation refer to the standards and doctrines which have to be obeyed in the legislative process. Parts of standards and doctrines are reaffirmed in the Constitution and parts of them are considered as the inviolable preconditions. The principles of legislation contain both positive functions and negative functions. The positive functions guide the legislator to establish a more rational legislation and the negative functions are used as a standard to validate the legislation contrary to the principles of legislation. The principles of legislation are not only the ex post facto standard to supervise the legal norms in the Constitutional Court, but also the ex ante facto standard to weigh and discuss the unconstitutional bills, the illegal bills and rationality of the bills. The principles of legislation could be enumerated the appropriate principles, the subsidiary principles, the unity and consistence of legal system, the prohibition of general delegation, the principle of equality, the principle of proportionality, the principles of prohibiting the violation of a minimum requirement, protection of reliability, the clear and definite principles, the principle of due process, respect of human rights and respect of constitutional principles and institutions. The principles of legislation are "the essential nature" rather than the legal norms. The principles of legislation are to rationalize the legislation and to legitimatize the standard and doctrine of legislation in law.

행정기본법의 평가와 과제

배병호(Bae, Byung Ho) 성균관대학교 법학연구원 2021 성균관법학 Vol.33 No.2

지난 3월23일부터 행정의 원칙과 기본사항을 규정하여 행정의 민주성과 적법성을 확보하고 적정성과 효율성을 향상시킴으로써 국민의 권익 보호에 이바지함을 목적으로 하는 「행정기본법」이 제정·시행되고 있다. 총 40개 조항 중 5개 조항은 2021년 9월24일부터, 11개 조항은 2023년3월24일부터 시행된다. 이제 시행된 지 3개월 정도이며 일부 조항들은 아직 시행되지 않고 있지만, 행정기본법 제정의 의의는 대단하다. 그러나 논의되었던 주요 개선 내용을 행정절차법 개정이 아닌 행정기본법 제정으로 방향을 틀면서, 여러 쟁점이 입법과정에서 부각되었고 향후 입법 과제로 남게 되었다. 입법과정에서 부각된 쟁점으로 기본법이라는 용어 사용문제, 법제처가 소관부처가 되는 것의 정부조직법상 문제, 적극행정명문화 문제, 정부안이 국회 심의 중에 법제사법위원장의 수정안으로 변경된 수정 이유와 수정 내용 등을 들 수 있다. 향후 과제로 행정기본법과 행정절차법의 관계의 조화 문제와 네덜란드와 프랑스식의 일반행정법 또는 행정기본법 개정 문제 및 2년의 시행기간을 가지고 있는 행정기본법 조항에 대한 검토 등을 들 수 있다. 행정기본법 제정과정에서 제기된 쟁점을 중심으로 검토하고, 행정기본법과 행정절차법이 양립하는 상황에 대한 평가와 함께 향후 입법과제에 대하여 살펴보기로 한다. General Act on Public Administration has enforced from Date 23. Mar, 2021. The purpose of this Act is to ensure democracy in and legality of administration and to enhance the appropriateness and efficiency thereof by prescribing principles and general matters regarding administration, thereby contributing to the protection of the rights and interests of citizens. This Act has total 40 articles, 5 articles of them shall be enforced from 24, September, 2021, and 11 articles of them shall be enforced from 24, Mar, 2023, The legislation of General Act on Public Administration is evaluated significantly and highly. But the change of legislation from the amendment of Administrative Procedure Act to the enactment of General Act on Public Administration has raised many disputed points and leaved many legislative tasks hereafter. Raised points in the legislative process are the naming problem of Framework Act or Basic Act or General Act, Ministry of Government Legislation’s competent authority problem of this Act on the GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION ACT, an express provision of positive administration, the reason and content of revision from the government bill to the amendment bill of the Legislation and Judiciary Committee chairman. As the future matters, there are the harmony problem between General Act on Public Administration and Administrative Procedure Act, the direction of amendment pro General Administrative Law Act of the Kingdom of Netherlands or the French Administrative Procedure Act. I will study many disputed points that is raised in the legislation of General Act on Public Administration and estimate the compatible situation of General Act on Public Administration and Administrative Procedure Act, and future legislative tasks.

「행정기본법」상 법령해석제도의 의의와 몇 가지 쟁점

이상수 법제처 2023 법제 Vol.702 No.-

이 논문은 「행정기본법」 제40조에 법령해석제도가 반영된 것을 기회로 법령해석제도의 제정 의의와 제도운용상 쟁점을 검토하고, 법원과 법제처의 행정법령 해석방법을 새롭게 정리할 필요가 있다는 점을 제시하고자 했다. 먼저 제2장에서는 법령해석제도의 제정 의의로, 법령의 해석에 의문이 있는 누구든지 해석요청을 할 수 있도록 ‘법령해석요청권’을 부여하고, 법령소관기관과 지방자치단체의 장에게는 헌법과 법령등의 취지에 맞게 법령과 자치법규를 해석할 권한과 집행할 책임이 있음을 명확히 했으며, 법제처의 정부유권해석의 법률적 근거를 마련하여 행정의 적법성과 정부견해의 통일성을 제고하고, 특히 국민의 권익의 사전적 보호가 더욱 확대될 수 있다고 보았다. 제3장에서는 법령해석제도 운용상 쟁점을 검토하여, 법제처에 대한 법령해석요청 주체와 대상에 대한 제도운영상의 보완이 필요하고, 특히 법령소관기관과 지방자치단체의 장이 수행하는 1차적 법령해석에 관한 업무처리절차 마련이 시급하다는 점을 밝혔다. 또한 정부유권해석이 갖는 사실상 구속력은 행정기관과 국민생활에 큰 의미를 갖고, 「행정기본법」 제40조가 신설됨에 따라 제도적 구속력이 더욱 강화되었다고 보았다. 제4장에서는「행정기본법」 제40조 제2항의 해석기준을 단초로 법해석방법에 관한 선행연구와 대법원 판례 및 법제처 해석례를 분석하여 입법자 중심 해석론의 활용이 부족함을 확인하고, 정책법규이자 행위규범으로서의 특성과 입법과정의 특수성을 통해 행정법 해석에 있어서는 입법자 중심 해석론이 중요함을 논증하고자 했다. 또한, 입법자료의 활용이 부족했던 이유와 활용가능성을 검토하고, 정부유권해석이 사법해석에 비해 입법자 중심 해석이 더 필요하며, 법원과 헌법재판소에서 행정해석이 어떻게 활용되고 있는지를 살펴보았다. 마지막으로 정보통신기술의 발달로 입법자료의 관리 및 제공이 용이해지고, 로스쿨 도입으로 변호사들이 국회와 행정기관에 참여하는 비율이 높아지는 등 국회와 행정부의 담당자들의 전문성도 강화되었는 점에서 행정법령의 입법과정과 입법자에 대한 신뢰를 위한 토대가 어느 정도 마련되었다고 보았다. 그렇다면 행정법은 정책을 담는 그릇이고, 입법과정은 정책결정과정이라고 한다면, 행정법 해석에 있어서 입법자 중심 해석론이 보다 더 잘 활용될 필요가 있다는 점을 강조하였다. Article 40 of the General Act on Administration reflected the legal interpretation system for administrative agencies. This guarantees procedural rights by granting the "right to request interpretation of laws" to anyone who has questions about the interpretation of laws and regulations and clarifies that the heads of central administrative agencies and local governments have the authority and responsibility to interpret laws and regulations with the purpose of the Constitution and laws. In addition, it is significant in that it provides a legal basis for the Ministry of Government Legislation's interpretation of government rights to enhance the legitimacy of administration and the unity of government views, and in particular, the prior protection of the people's rights can be further expanded. However, it is necessary to supplement the system operation of the subject and subject of the request for legal interpretation to the Ministry of Legislation, and in particular, it is urgent to prepare the first legal interpretation procedure performed by the heads of central administrative agencies and local governments. In addition, the actual binding power of the administrative interpretation, especially the government's authoritative interpretation of the Ministry of Legislation, is very significant for administrative agencies and people's lives, moreover, the institutional binding power has been strengthened with the establishment of Article 40 of the General Act on Administration. Therefore, rather than discussing legally binding power, the focus should now be on institutional improvement measures and control and improvement measures for illegal and unconstitutional administrative interpretation so that administrative interpretation can be carried out well. On the other hand, it was confirmed that the use of legislator-centered interpretation theory was insufficient by analyzing previous studies on legal interpretation methods, Supreme Court precedents, and legislative interpretation cases based on the interpretation criteria of Article 40 (2) of the General Act on Administration. Through its characteristics as a policy law and administrative law and the specificity of the legislative process, it was intended to argue that legislator-centered interpretation theory is important in interpreting administrative law. In addition, it was examined that administrative interpretation, especially government authority interpretation by the Ministry of Government Legislation, needs more legislator-centered interpretation than judicial interpretation. Subsequently, it was confirmed that the actual court and the Constitutional Court were using the interpretation data of the Ministry of Legislation as a reference to some extent. With the development of information and communication technology and the acceleration of national informatization, it has become easier to manage and provide legislative data (also legislative process data), and the expertise of legislators and administrative legislators has been strengthened.

일본 법무성의 형사입법 정책 - 일본 「법제심의회 형사법(성범죄)부회(部会)」 검토를 중심으로 -

이정민 한국형사정책학회 2023 刑事政策 Vol.35 No.3

일본 법률은 정부입법 성립율이 의원입법보다 높다. 그 입법은 어떤 사건발생이나 인기 때문에 급조된 것이 아닌, 사회·경제 흐름과 변화를 반영한 입법임을 그 시스템을 통해 알 수 있다. 법무성과 관련된 입법에 한정해서 보면, 입법 필요성이 있으면, 법무대신이 혼자 결정하는 것이 아니라, 먼저 전문가 그룹인 법제심의회에 자문을 구하고, 법제심의회 또는 그 부회(部会)에서는 법무대신의 구체적인 자문에 응하여 입법이나 개정의 당부를 정하고, 그 구체적 방법을 논의한다. 입법 논의시에 법무성은 필요한 조사를 미리 해 두고, 배포자료, 검토 원안, 시안(試案), 법률안 등을준비하여 논의의 효율성에 기여한다. 이러한 모든 과정은 법무성 홈페이지 의사록을 통해, 공개하며, 이를 통해 입법과정의 투명성이 보장된다. 법률안 검토는 새로운 범죄유형이 신설될 때는 보호법익과 처벌근거를 검토하고, 벌칙으로의 명확성, 처벌범위의 합리성, 규정의 형태 등에 대해 검토한다. 마지막으로 법정형의 정도 및 근거에 대해 검토한다. 이러한 법률안 검토 작업은 입법의 정당성을 부여하고 근거를 뒷받침해 준다. 또한 입법 부작용을 방지하기 위한 중요한 과정이다. 그 구체적인 내용을최근 개정된 일본의 성범죄(부동의성범죄)를 통해 살펴보았다. 우리나라에도 일본의 법제심의회와 유사한 법무자문위원회가 있지만 활성화되어 있지 않다. 일본의 법제심의회와 부회의 활동을 통해 우리나라 법무자문위원회에 대한 정책적 시사점을 제시한다. Japanese legislation has a higher rate of enactment of government legislation than parliamentary legislation, indicating that the system reflects social and economic trends and changes, rather than being hastily enacted due to the occurrence of specific events or political popularity. Regarding the legislation by the Ministry of Justice (MOJ), when there is a need for legislation, the Minister of Justice does not decide on his own. In the first place, the minister seeks advice from the Legislative Review Council, an expert group. Then the Legislative Review Council or its subcommittees respond to the specific advice of the Attorney General to determine the timing of legislation or amendments and discuss the specific methods. When discussing legislation, the MOJ conducts necessary research in advance and prepares distribution materials, review drafts, prototypes, and bills to contribute to the efficiency of the discussion. All of these processes are publicly available through the minutes on the MOJ website, ensuring transparency of the legislative process. When a new type of crime is created, the review of the bill examines the legal interests to be protected, the grounds for punishment, the clarity of the penalty, the rationality of the punishment range, and the form of the regulation. Finally, it examines the severity and rationale of statutory sentences. This review process provides legitimacy to the legislation and supports its rationale. This is also an important process to prevent adverse effects of legislation. In Korea, we do have a legal advisory committee similar to the Japanese Law Review Council, but it is not active. This article presents policy implications for Korea's legal advisory committee through the activities of Japan's Law Review Council and its subcommittees.

행정기본법 제정 및 행정절차법 개정에 대한 평론 — 행정법이론체계에 대한 함의와 입법적 과제 —

김유환 행정법이론실무학회 2022 행정법연구 Vol.- No.68

One year after the General Act on Public Administration was enacted in 2021, the Administrative Procedure Act was amended significantly. Administrative law theories have been greatly impacted by the both legislations. And significant theoretical problems have been discussed about the General Act on Public Administration. The problems are as follows. ① In the General Act on Public Administration, the legislators adopted a litigatory concept such as ‘administrative disposition’ indeliberately.(§2, 4) ② The legislators defined the concept of sanction ambiguously and adopted dual concepts in reality.(§2, 5, §23) ③ The legislators specified §14① of the General Act on Public Administration inconsistently with the rulings of the Constitutional Court. ④ The legislators adopted the concept “de facto effects” which mismatches with the current administrative law Dogmatics. But, the English translation of the Act has not contained the concept.(§15) ⑤ The legislators defined balancing of interests as comparing all the disadvantages and all the public interests in the process of Revocation or Withdrawal of disposition. By doing so, they have lost their practical points and aims. (§18(2), §19(2)) ⑥ The legislators adopted the title “Withdrawal of Legitimate Disposition” for Article 19, But it is not consistent with the theoretical meaning of withdrawal of disposition. Moreover, though the legislators have assumed only prospective effects of withdrawal. withdrawal of disposition has retrospective effects sometimes.(§19) ⑦ The legislators have not permitted automatic disposition for discretionary administrative actions. However, It is not consistent with current administrative practice.((§20) ⑧ The legislators have not allowed raising objections to disposition by the third party of the disposition and restricted the application of the clauses for raising objections to disposition irrationally.((§36 (1),(3)) ⑨ The legislators made big mistakes in the clauses for Re-examination of dispositions. Many legal scholars consider the clauses as unconstitutional. In addition, In amending the Administrative Procedure Act, the legislators limited the possibility of administrative assurance only for the party of the disposition and not for the third party of disposition. However, It is not easily justifiable in the light of current theoretical understandng. Not only these theoretical problems, there are many drawbacks in the multiple legislation system of general administrative law. Overlapping and dispersed rulings are another significant problems. For these reasons, I recommend strongly the integration of the both acts into one code in the near future.

부가가치세법상 면세범위의 포괄적 위임입법의 문제점

오기수 한국세무학회 2011 세무와 회계저널 Vol.12 No.3

Economic thought has infinite variety and its creation and change are very extreme in modern enhanced economic activity, leading high technology, complexity, and specialization of tax problems. Accordingly, even though we adhere to the principle of no taxation without law on the establishment of tax law, it is impossible to perfectly stipulate all issues on tax by law. So the principle of no taxation without law inevitably approves a delegated legislation of tax law as a necessary evil. But the delegated legislation should not be the general delegated legislation. The tax law is the field that has the most general delegated legislation. As constitutional law established a liability to pay taxes on article 38 and declared “Type and tax rate are decided by law,” on article 59, basic issues such as an object of taxation and a tax rate should be decided by law. The general delegated legislation of tax law is against constitutional law, and the Constitutional Court made many adjudgements of violation of the Constitution. This research studied problems that generally delegate the range of tax exemption of medical and health services, education services, and finance and insurance services among provisions on tax exemption of article 12 of value added tax law to enforcement ordinance and its ways to improve, contributing to fulfill a legalism on tax requirement of the principle of no taxation without law. As a result, it suggested an improvement scheme on establishment of value added tax law of ‘medical and health services, education services, finance and insurance services’ that generally delegates the range of tax exemption based on the value added tax law. This way is to prevent a violation of the constitution of general delegated legislation and to secure legal stability and predictability by establishing basic concept and range of tax exemption by law. 현대의 고도화된 경제활동에 있어서 경제 사상(事象)은 천차만별하고 그 생성ㆍ변화가 매우 심하므로 이에 따른 조세 문제도 복잡화ㆍ전문화하여 고도의 기술성을 띠게 된다. 따라서 조세법의 제정에 있어서 조세법률주의를 아무리 고수한다고 하더라도 법률로 조세에 관한 모든 사항을 빠짐없이 망라하여 완벽하게 규정한다는 것은 불가능하다. 그러므로 조세법률주의는 불가피하게 필요악으로서 조세법의 위임입법을 인정하게 된다. 그렇다고 조세법 규정을 제정함에 있어서 위임입법이 포괄적 위임입법이어서는 안된다. 조세법 분야는 포괄 위임입법이 가장 많은 분야이다. 헌법은 제38조에서 납세의무를 규정하고, 제59조에서 ‘조세의 종목과 세율은 법률로 정한다.’라고 규정함으로써 ‘과세대상이 되는 사항과 세율 등 기본적인 사항은 법률로 정해져야 한다’는 조세법률주의를 선언하고 있다. 따라서 조세법의 포괄적인 위임입법은 헌법에 위배되며, 헌법재판소는 조세법 중 포괄적 위임입법에 대하여 다수의 위헌결정을 하였다. 본 연구는 부가가치세법 제12조의 면세규정 중 의료보건용역, 교육용역, 금융ㆍ보험용역의 면세 범위를 시행령에 포괄적으로 위임하고 있는 문제점과 그 개선방안에 대해서 연구하여 조세법률주의의 과세요건명확주의를 실현하는데 기여하고자 하였다. 그 결과 부가가치세법상 면세범위를 포괄적으로 위임입법하고 있는 ‘의료보건용역, 교육용역, 금융ㆍ보험용역’의 부가가치세법의 법률 규정에 대해서 개선안을 제시하였다. 그 방안은 해당 용역 등에 대한 기본적인 개념과 면세범위를 법률에 규정함으로써 포괄적 위임입법의 위헌성을 배제하고 법적안정성과 예측가능성을 확보할 수 있도록 한 것이다. 또한 시행령에 규정될 내용이 어떠한 것이 될 것인지 예측 가능하게 하여 행정입법권에 의하여 국민의 재산권이 침해될 여지를 배제하는 것이다.

조세법에 있어서 위임입법 한계의 변화 ― 헌법재판소의 결정례를 중심으로 ―

박훈 ( Hun Park ) 서울시립대학교 법학연구소 2007 서울법학 Vol.15 No.1

When the requirement for taxation is provided not only in the law but also in the enforcement ordinance and/or enforcement regulations, such provision itself does not constitute that such law, enforcement ordinance, and/or enforcement regulations violate Articles 38, 59, and 75 of the constitutional law. The point would be the judgment whether such provision observed the limit of delegated legislation. Such a judgment is finally made by The Constitutional Court in case of laws and by the Supreme Court in case of enforcement ordinances and/or enforcement regulations. In this paper, it was intended to review whether the standpoint of The Constitutional Court to the limit of delegated legislation on tax laws and regulations has been changed based on the examples of judgments of The Constitutional Court from 1 September 1988 when the court was opened to 6 July 2007. When 75 examples of judgments of The Constitutional Court were reviewed, no apparent change was found in terms of two large shafts, i.e. ‘probability of prediction’ and ‘necessity of delegation’ that are suggested as the limit of delegated legislation of The Constitutional Court. As a result, the judgments of The Constitutional Court showed many examples of acceptance of ‘probability of prediction’ and ‘necessity of delegation’. And then, the substantial acceptance of ‘probability of prediction’ and ‘necessity of delegation’ in the limit in delegated legislation indicates the change in the standpoint towards the one that such provision does not violates the principle of ‘forbidden general delegation’. Two kinds of cases using the term of ‘high grade’ are found: the one is the case that the ‘high grade houses’ under the provision of 112.2 of old Local Tax Law was judged as violation of the constitution due to the violation of the principle of forbidden general delegated legislation (The Constitutional Court: 28 Jan 1999; 98-HeonGa-17) and the other is the case that the ‘high grade camera’ in Item 1, ,Class 2, Group 4 under the provision of 1.2 of old Special Consumption Law was judged as no violation of the principle of ‘forbidden general delegated legislation (The Constitutional Court: 30 Oct 2003; 2002-HeonBa-81). When it is considered that The Constitutional Court has made almost no judgment of violation of constitution due to the violation of the principle of ‘forbidden general delegated legislation’ since 2003, the substantial acceptance of ‘probability of prediction’ and ‘necessity of delegation’ would be deemed as directing towards no violation of the principle of ‘forbidden general delegation’.

미국 OLC(Office of Legal Counsel)의 법령의 유권해석

김웅규(Kim Woong-kyu) 세계헌법학회 한국학회 2009 世界憲法硏究 Vol.15 No.2

행정부의 유권해석이란 행정기관이 법령을 집행하기 위하여 법령의 명확한 해석을 구하거나 다른 행정기관과의 관할과 권한의 충돌이 발생할 때 문제의 해결이 필요한 경우 행정부내의 통일적인 법질서를 위하여 전문적인 법적 의견을 제시하는 업무이다. 삼권분립의 원리하에서 법령의 최종적 해석은 사법부가 담당하지만 분쟁이 발생하기전 행정의 집행단계에서 정확하고 통일적인 법령해석은, 행정의 법적합성이라는 법치주의의 헌법원리를 구현하고, 명확한 헌법적·법률적 근거와 허용범위 내에서 효율적인 정책수립과 집행을 도모하며 비생산적인 소송을 피함으로써 신속하고도 공정한 행정업무를 수행하기 위해서 필요한 것이다. 한국에서는 이러한 유권해석의 업무를 법무부와 법제처가 담당하며 미국에서는 OLC(Office of Legal Counsel)가 담당하고 있다. OLC는 연방헌법과 법률, 그리고 행정명령과 규칙의 근거하에 법무부소속으로 설치되어 미국대통령과 법무부장관에 대한 법률적 조언을 제공하고 있으며 정부 내 행정기관의 다양한 법령해석의 분쟁에 대한 준사법적 기능을 수행하고 있다. OLC는 법령해석에 대한 자문역할을 담당하며 집행력은 없고 소송에 대한 책임은 지지 않는다. 결국 OLC의 법적 의견은 두 가지의 목적을 위하여 제시된다. 첫 번째 대통령에 대한 법률상의 조언이고 두 번째 행정부전체에 대하여 구속력있는 선결례로서 기능하는 것이다. OLC는 법적 조언이 정부기관이 의도하는 정책의 수행을 제한할지라도 관련법령에 대하여 정확하고 진실된 해석을 전달한다는 것을 전제로, 정부기관의 행정행위에 대하여 법적 조언을 제공할 때, 연방정부의 기관들의 헌법상의 권한과 그한계 등을 포함하는 모든 법리적 대상을 반영하여야 하고 그 해석의 기준으로서 연방법원의 판결뿐만 아니라 OLC의 선례와 정부기관의 권한 그리고 현대통령의 견해들을 모두 검토해야 하며, OLC의 법적 조언이 수준높은 검토이며 최상의 법 적 견해라는 점을 보증하기 위하여 내부조직과 관례를 지속적으로 관리유지해야 한다는 내부적 원칙하에 운영되고 있다. 이러한 미국 OLC의 기능과 역할의 분석은 한국의 법제처가 수행해야할 법령 해석의 범위와 효력, 그리고 한계를 논의하고 개선발전시키는 데 도움을 줄 것이다. Statutory interpretation provided by MOLEG(Ministry of Government Legislation) in Korea is to clarify the meaning and contents of the rather general and abstract statutes for the application or enforcement of the statutes on specific cases. The clear and objective statutory interpretation of the executive action is to advance the creditability of administration and avoid the time-consuming judicial proceedings. Statutory interpretation in the government is performed by OLC(Office of Legal Counsel) in the United States. OLC drafts legal opinions of the Attorney General and also provides its own written opinions and oral advice in response to requests from the President, the various agencies of the Executive Branch, and offices within the Department. Such requests usually deal with legal issues of particular complexity and importance or about disagreement between two agencies. OLC also is responsible for providing legal advice to the Executive Branch on all constitutional questions and reviewing pending legislation for constitutionality. When the views of OLC are sought on the question of the legality of a proposed executive branch action, those views are considered as conclusive and binding with in the executive branch. But the President and the Attorney General is able to reject OLC's opinions. All executive orders and proclamations proposed to be issued by the President are reviewed by OLC for form and legality, as are various other matters that require the President's formal approval. In addition to serving as, in effect, outside counsel for the other agencies of the Executive Branch, the Office of Legal Counsel also functions as general counsel for the Department itself. It reviews all proposed orders of the Attorney General and all regulations requiring the Attorney General's approval. It also performs a variety of special assignments referred by the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General. More important thing is that OLC acts more as a judge than as an advocate who proffers any reasonable argument in support of his client's policy objectives. It is meaningful that President Washington informed the Nation's first Attorney General, Edmund Randolph, that he wanted “to find a skilled, neutral expounder of the law rather than a political advisor”. The comparative analysis of the statutory interpretation agency in Korea and the United States would be helpful to improve the quality of the national legislation and keep the constitutionality of the executive action.