「판단력 비판」의 교육학적 의미 : 취미 판단을 중심으로

조영태 한국도덕교육학회 2011 道德敎育硏究 Vol.23 No.2

Critique of Judgement deals with the possibility of acquiring knowledge, that is, the possibility of existence of knowledge. It is a philosophical problem. I deal with the educational problem connected with knowledge in this paper. That problem can be specified by two questions: 1. Does the Idea which is transcendental, mean educational ideal? 2. How is the Idea acquired? In addition to those two questions, Critique of Judgement raises one more educational question: 3. Can the Judgement of taste (art) be a way to the Idea?I tried to answer these three questions on the basis of Critique of Judgement. Critique of Judgement implies those answers. That is, Kant’s answer to the possibility of existence of knowledge implies those answers to the educational questions. I examined critique of judgement of taste which is included in Critique of Judgement minutely. Transcendental principles of judgement of taste ― formal purposiveness of nature or free play of imagination and understanding ― means the unity of nature and subject or the harmony of sense and reason, which is educational ideal. So, I can conclude that 1. the Idea is educational ideal and, 2. the Idea is acquired by acquiring knowledge. And I concluded that 3. in addition to knowledge (science), judgement of taste (art) can be a way to the Idea. When acquiring knowledge, the Idea is transcendentally presupposed. So, the Idea is acquired indirectly. When pursuing judgement of taste, the Idea is felt directly. However that question still remains, whether judgement of taste can be a safe or efficient wat to the Idea. 「판단력 비판」은 인식의 동태적 계기―지식 획득의 가능성(즉 지식의 성립 가능성)―를 드러내어 다룬다. 본 연구자는 그것으로부터 인식의 교육적 계기―지식 획득의 목적(즉 지식 획득이 이념 형성의 경로라는 점)―를 도출하였다. 본 연구자가 이렇게 할 수 있는 것은 칸트에게 있어서 인식의 동태적 계기는 특이하게 판단력(즉 이념, 혹은 대상과 주체의 일치, 감각과 이성의 조화)을 근거로 하기 때문이다. 그 근거는 인식의 교육적 계기를 함의한다. 이런 점을 논의함에 있어서, 즉 판단력의 정체와 존재를 밝힘에 있어서 본 연구자는, 칸트를 따라, 취미 판단―쾌·불쾌의 감정에 관한 판단―을 검토하였다. 판단력을 논의함에 있어서 감정을 끌어들인 것은, 판단력은 인식과 감정에 공히 걸리기 때문이며, 나아가서 (감정을 자신의 관할 구역으로 삼는 탓에) 감정에서 자신을 더 잘 드러내기 때문이다. 이런 점에서 칸트와 본 연구자에게 있어서 취미 판단의 검토는 인식의 검토―인식의 동태적 계기 및 교육적 계기에 대한 검토―를 위한 수단이라고 말할 수 있다. 그러나 칸트와 본 연구자에게 있어서 취미 판단의 검토는 그 자체가 목적이라고 말할 수도 있으며 나아가서 인식의 검토를 수단으로 거느린다고까지 말할 수도 있다.「판단력 비판」은 미학이기도 한 것이다. 칸트는 취미 판단(예술)이 일종의 인식이라는 점을 확립하였다(취미 판단의 동태적 계기). 그리고 본 연구자는 그것이 교육의 목적(판단력)에 이르는 일종의 경로라는 점을 확인하였다(취미 판단의 교육적 계기).

칸트의 비판철학에서 취미판단의 선험적 종합성 - 대상판단, 행위판단과의 관계를 중심으로 -

남정우 동국대학교 동서사상연구소 2011 철학·사상·문화 Vol.0 No.11

Both of the judgements, of object which legislate the world of nature through understanding and of action which legislate the world of freedom through practical reason, are synthetic a priori judgement. Demonstrating synthetic a priority of those judgement, had Kant established the possibility of new metaphysics in each of worlds, namely, of nature and freedom. But these two different world still remain as different domain that are dominated by totally different two laws, that are law of nature and of freedom. Kant had made an attempt to mediate these two different laws dominating metaphysics through the reflective faculty of judgement in his third critique, the Critique of Judgement. This faculty of judgement, which also has transcendental formality like other cognitive faculties of subject, legislates by mediating the domain of nature and freedom through concept of purposiveness. By showing this mechanism of the faculty, had he thought that would be possible to establish on the one and only ground of new metaphysics. In this respect, must the judgements of taste, which are made by reflective faculty of judgement, also have the synthetic a priority. Therefore a judgement of taste is synthetic a priori judgement, which is made about the accompanied feelings of pleasure or unpleasure when judgement of object or action is on making, and its concept of predicate is of cocepts of taste. These judgements are a priori because their subject terms are originated in the transcendental mechanism of the relation of imagination and understanding, and are also synthetic because their predicate terms are sythesized by the concepts which is delivered through the effects of reflective faculty of judgement. A remained problem is of that how judgement of taste could get the universal validity. Kant had tried to solve passively by choosing the way of that the 'common senses' of the cognitive subjects which communicate those synthetic a priority of the judgements of tastes. 칸트의 비판철학에서 오성에 의해 자연세계를 입법하는 대상판단과 이성에 의해 자유세계를 입법하는 행위판단은 공히 선험적 종합판단이다. 칸트는 심의능력들의 관계를 통해 대상판단과 행위판단의 이와 같은 선험적 종합성을 증명함으로써 자연과 자유의 영역에서 새로운 형이상학의 가능성을 수립했다. 하지만 자연과 자유의 세계는 서로 다른 법칙이 지배하는 영역으로 남아 있다. 하지만 칸트는 『판단력 비판』에서 판단력이 자연과 자유를 목적의 개념에 따라 매개하여 입법하는 능력임을 보임으로써 자연과 자유의 형이상학을 하나의 지반 위에 세우고자 했다. 따라서 반성적 판단력의 작용을 통해 결과하는 취미판단 역시 선험적 종합성을 지니는 것이 되어야 했다. 취미판단은 대상판단과 행위판단을 내리는 중에 수반된 쾌․불쾌의 감정에 관해 내려지는 판단이며 그 술어로 취미의 개념이 자리하게 됨으로써 이루어진다. 이러한 취미판단의 주어는 상상력과 오성의 관계라는 선험론적 기제에 따르는 것이므로 선험적이며, 그 술어가 반성적 판단력이 고안해 낸 ‘아름다움’의 술어가 결합된다는 점에서 종합적이다. 문제는 감정의 주관성과 그에 따른 취미의 술어가 어떻게 객관적인 보편성을 갖는가 하는 점이다. 칸트는 이 문제를 여러 주관들이 이러한 취미의 선험적 종합성에 관한 전달가능성의 기제, 즉 공통감을 통해 소극적으로 해결하려 한다.

판례평석 방법론에 관한 시론적 고찰 - 민사법 분야를 중심으로

오세혁(Se-Hyuk Oh) 한국비교사법학회 2006 비교사법 Vol.13 No.4

  The legal system in Korea mainly consists of statutes. But, precedents are regarded as a essential component of Korean legal system. Precedents have enriched contents of law and developed law. Now precedents play an important part in law and legal science in civil-law system as well as in common-law system.<BR>  It is commentary on judgement that analyses the content of precedents and evaluates correctness/reasonableness of precedents. Commentary functions like a bridge that connects between precedents and legal doctrines. Precedents remain live through commentaries on the precedents. Commentary on judgement will provide legal scholars and practioners with the common forum of legal studies.<BR>  Each country has its own method of commentary on judgement related to legal systems, legal institution and legal culture at various levels. Above all, there is an indissoluble connection between commentary on judgement and the status of precedents in legal system concerned. The different status of precedents in each legal system demands for different method of commentary on judgement. Secondarily, commentaries on judgement are connected with the objects, the contents, the structures and the styles of judicial judgements. Commentaries on judgement, furthermore, are connected with openness of judgement and access to judgement, the interrelation between precedents and legal doctrines, the realities of legislation, the legal sentiment, the legal consciousness.<BR>  So, it is necessary to investigate into the structure, procedure and function of judiciary system as well as the status of precedents, the style of judgement in order to advance a theory of commentary on judgement. Then the complete standard model of commentary on judgement can be presented.

공유물분할소송에서의 판결 및 조정의 효력

문준섭 민사판례연구회 2015 民事判例硏究 Vol.- No.37

Supreme Court has ruled that, in action of partion for co-owned object, judgement leads directly to transfer of real rights, but arbitration does not, so it needs registration for transfer of real rights. According to Civil Code Article 187, acquisition of real estate by "judgment" does not require registration. It is generally said that, in this Article, "judgement" means formative judgments and judgement of partion of co-owned object is one of them. However, formative judgments can form a variety of juridical relations, so "judgement" in Article 187 does not mean all kinds of formative judgement, but just means formative judgement which can lead directly to transfer of real rights. The reason is that, ① Civil law is subject to the principle of disclosure, so transfer of real rights without registration is granted only on the condition that it should be the nature of the case or it should be unavoidable on the policy. ② There is no logical ground that "judgement" in Article 187 should include judgement of partion. ③ Swiss Civil Code admits "formative transfer of property right by judgement" in Article 665. 1. and "principle of public confidence" in real estate transactions, so we can not follow the interpretation of Swiss Civil law without any consideration. ④ The ways of partion of co-owned object varys, and sometimes we gets unreasonable results if judgement of partion leads directly to transfer of real rights. ⑤ During the actual proceedings, judges consider the both parties' intents as important. ⑥ Both parties can and usually does use the proceedings and judgement to evade the legal prohibition on partion of co-owned object, and in these cases, there happens to be discordance of the registration and the legal states. In conclusion, judgement of partion of co-owned object results in "the formative agreement of both parties on the ways of partion", not "the transfer of real rights". In these grounds, we can easily explain why the arbitration for partion does not lead directly to the transfer of real rights. The above ruling says, the effect of judgement of partion is different from that of arbitration of partion. But it can not explain the followings; ① Civil Arbitration Act Article 28, 29 and Civil Code Article 220 says, arbitration has the same effect as judgement. ② The arbitration and the judgement of partion of co-owned object has the same subject-matter. 대상판결은 “공유물분할의 소송절차 또는 조정절차에서 공유자 사이에 공유토지에 관한 현물분할의 협의가 성립하여 그 합의사항을 조서에 기재함으로써 조정이 성립하였다고 하더라도, 그와 같은 사정만으로 재판에 의한 공유물분할의 경우와 마찬가지로 그 즉시 공유관계가 소멸하고 각 공유자에게 그 협의에 따른 새로운 법률관계가 창설되는 것은 아니라고 할 것이고, 공유자들이 협의한 바에 따라 토지의 분필절차를 마친 후 각 단독소유로 하기로 한 부분에 관하여 다른 공유자의 공유지분을 이전받아 등기를 마침으로써 비로소 그 부분에 대한 대세적 권리로서의 소유권을 취득하게 된다고 보아야 한다.”고 판시하였다. 민법 제187조에 따르면, 판결에 의한 부동산에 관한 물권취득은 등기를 요하지 아니한다고 규정하고 있는데, 일반적으로 이때 판결이란 형성판결을 의미하고, 공유물분할판결은 그 중 하나로서 공유물분할판결만으로 등기를 요하지 아니하고 곧바로 물권변동이 일어난다고 설명되며, 대상판결도 이와 궤를 같이 한다. 그러나 모든 형성판결이 물권변동을 직접적으로 초래하는 것은 아니므로, 민법 제187조의 “판결”이란 직접적으로 물권변동을 수반하는 형성판결을 의미한다고 해석하여야 하고, 공유물분할판결은 형성판결에 해당하나 직접 물권변동을 일으키는 판결은 아니라고 보아야 한다. 그 이유는, 첫째, 우리 민법은 물권변동에 있어 공시의 원칙을 대전제로 하고 있고, 특히 부동산 물권변동의 경우 공신의 원칙은 채택하고 있지 아니하므로, 등기에 의하지 아니하는 물권변동은 정책상 부득이한 필요가 있는 경우나 법률관계의 성질상 당연한 경우로 한정하여야 한다는 점, 둘째, 민법 제187조만으로는 공유물분할판결에 물권변동의 형성적 효력을 부여할 근거가 될 수 없을 뿐만 아니라, 달리 공유물분할판결에 위와 같은 효력을 부여하여야 할 법률적·정책적 근거를 찾을 수 없는 점, 셋째 스위스에서는 공유물분할판결을 물권변동을 일으키는 형성판결로 이해하고 있으나, 우리 민법과 달리, 스위스민법은 소유권의 창설적 취득을 인정하는 소를 예정하고 있을 뿐만 아니라, 공신의 원칙을 채택하고 있으므로, 그 해석론을 그대로 답습할 수 없는 점, 넷째 가액배상 등의 경우 공유물분할판결의 물권변동의 효력을 관철할 때 불합리한 결과가 나타나는 점, 다섯째 실무에서는 판결의 경우에도 공유물분할의 방법을 정함에 있어 당사자들의 의사를 중요하게 고려하고 있는 점, 여섯째 실제로 공유물분할을 금지하는 행정법규를 회피하기 위하여 공유물분할소송을 이용하는 경우가 있는데, 이러한 경우에도 공유물분할판결의 물권변동 효력을 인정할 경우 등기와 실제 권리관계의 불일치가 발생하게 되고 이를 시정할 마땅한 방법이 없게 되는 점 등을 들 수 있다. 따라서 공유물분할판결이 형성하는 법률관계는 직접적인 물권변동이 아니라 현물분할의 협의에 갈음하는 의사의 합치라고 보아야 한다. 이와 같은 해석을 따를 경우, 공유물분할조정에 물권변동의 효력이 인정되지 아니하는 이유도 쉽게 설명할 수 있다. 대상판결은 공유물분할판결과 공유물분할조정의 효력을 달리 인정하고 있는데, 민사조정법 제28조, 제29조 및 민사소송법 제220조에 따르면 조정은 확정판결과 동일한 효력을 가지고 있을 뿐만 아니라, 공유물분할판결의 소송물과 공유물분할조정 ...

도덕·윤리교육의 쟁점(1) : 도덕적 판단,도덕적 감정, 도덕적 행위간의 관계

서규선 서원대학교 교육대학원 1999 교육논총 Vol.3 No.-

Good character consists of moral knowledge, moral emotion, and moral action these are not only necessary for leading a moral life, but also the specific qualities we should try to help our students develop in moral and ethical education. Moral judgement, emotion, and action do not function as separate factors but inter-penetrate each other in all kinds of ways. Moral judgement can give rise to moral emotion, but moral emotion can also influence moral judgement. Much of our creative moral judgement arieses from moral emotion. Moral judgement and moral emotion affect our moral action, especially when they work together. But the influence is reciprocal, that is, moral action also influence moral judgement and emotion. Each domain of character andits components work together in complex, simultaneous ways of which we may not even be aware in our moral life. Moral awareness, knowing moral values, perspective-taking, moral reasoning, decision-making, and self-knowledge are the qualities of moral judgement. Conscience, self-esteem, loving the good, self-control, and humility make up moral emotion. Moral emotion combines with moral judgement to form the source of our moral motivation. They bridge from moral judgement to moral action. There are times, however, when we may know what we should do, feel we should do it, but still fail to translate judgement and emotion into action. Therefore, we need to look at moral competence, will, and habit. In a person of good character, moral judgement, emotion, and action work together to support each other. But even exceptionally good person often fall short of their best moral self. Therefore, we teach students to learn the relations among moral judgement, moral emotion, and moral action in moral and ethical education. Moral educatiors must help students to lead a moral life increasingly integrating moral judgement, moral emotion and patterns of moral action.

중국 행정소송상 의무이행소송에 관한 검토

정이근(Jeong Yi-Keun) 한국비교공법학회 2010 공법학연구 Vol.11 No.1

중국 행정소송법에서는 각 사건의 구체적 상황에 따라 법원이 유지판결, 취소판결, 부분 취소판결, 새로운 행정행위를 하도록 하는 판결 및 이행판결을 하도록 규정하고 있다. 행정소송법이 구체적으로 소송의 종류를 구분하여 규정하고 있지 않지만, 판결의 종류를 규정함으로써 실질적으로 의무이행소송제도를 운용하고 있다. 의무이행소송은 급부소송에 속하고, 의무이행소송은 소송목적의 급부성과 소송목적물의 소극성을 가진다. 의무이행소송은 행정법 영역에서 광범위하게 적용 가능한 소송의 한 형식이다. 의무이행소송을 제기하기 위해서는, (1)행정상대방이 행정기관에 대하여 특정한 신청을 할 것, (2)청구는 행정기관에 대하여 특정한 행정행위를 요구할 것, (3)행정기관의 거부 또는 부작위로 인하여 권리침해 또는 그 침해가능성이 있을 것, (4)행정기관이 정당한 이유 없이 구체적 행정행위를 하지 않을 것, (5)법정 기간 내 소송을 제기할 것, (6)의무이행소송을 통한 구제가 가능할 것 등의 요건을 만족해야 한다. 인민법원은 의무이행소송이 제기되면 청구권의 존재 여부에 대하여 심사하고, 또한 사건의 성숙성에 대한 판단을 한다. 의무이행소송의 판결은 구체적 판결설에 따라 행정기관이 이행할 구체적인 내용을 포함하여 판결한다. 이행판결과 새로운 행정행위를 명하는 판결은 개념상 구분된다. 새로운 행정행위를 명하는 판결은 원 행정행위의 취소를 전제로 한다. 의무이행판결에서 법원은 의무이행의 기간을 설정해야 한다. 이때 판결서상 기간의 설정은 법정 기간을 적용하는 경우 또는 합리적 기간을 적용하는 경우가 있다. In Chinese Administrative Procedure Law, in according to concrete condition, the People's Court can give decision upon judgement maintaining a specific administrative acts, rescind a judgement, partial rescind a judgement, judgement for new performance order, and judgement of specific performance. Although Chinese Administrative Procedure Law not provides the form of lawsuit in directly, but it concludes the form of judgement, so we can understand that Chinese Administrative Procedure Law apply the system of lawsuit for performance of obligation. Lawsuit for performance of obligation belong to action of performance, and it has the nature of prestation and negative feature in purpose of action. So, in administrative law realm, we can apply it widely. If administrative counterpart institute lawsuit for performance of obligation, the lawsuit must satisfy following requisites: (1)the existence of application of administrative counterpart; (2)the application must conclude a specified performance for administrative agency; (3)the existence of injury or it's possibility in refusal or nonfeasance of administrative agency; (4)without resonable reason, administrative agency have no action; (5)the lawsuit must satisfy the term condition; (6)the lawsuit for performance of obligation must be useful in that case. If lawsuit for performance of obligation was instituted by administrative counterpart, the People's Court will review the existence of application right and the ripeness of the case. According to the theory of specific judgement, the judgement for lawsuit for performance of obligation must concludes specified contents of performance for administrative agency. The judgement for performance of obligation distinguish from the judgement for new performance order in conception. The judgement for new performance order wants a condition that reverse of original administrative action. In the judgement for performance of obligation, the People's Court must fix the period of performance of obligation. At that time, the People's Court will apply an legal limits of time or a resonable period in written judgement.

경영진의 손해배상책임과 경영판단 원칙

한석훈 한국상사법학회 2009 商事法硏究 Vol.27 No.4

The business judgement rule is discussed among the scholars until quite recently. The discussions about the business judgement rule now are focused on application of the rule in our commercial law system. This article deals with the same subject. The business judgement rule covers the issues in the burden of proof as well as the duty of care. The most important point of the rule appears to be that concerning the burden of proof. But, the law system concerning the burden of proof have a difference between Korea and United States of America. The business judgement rule have been developed under the law system of America since 19th century. I also think that the business judgement rule is not fit for the law system of Korea. But, I consider that the principles of the business judgement rule can be applied to the duty of care. The scholarly discussions concerning the problem showed that the protection of the business judgement is necessary for the development of the corporation. Directors of the corporation inevitably may make the decisions that result in losses. Some losses can be due to directors' bad judgements, others can be due to bad luck, sometimes. The fear of personal responsibility can lead directors to avoid reasonable business risks or keep away qualified person from serving as directors of the corporation. Therefore, the business judgement rule intends that director's responsibility is limited to losses due to his bad judgements. It is important to establish reasonable law system for a corporation and a spirit of enterprise.

세무전문가의 윤리적 판단에 관한 연구

주태현,박춘래,이혜옥 한국세무학회 2010 세무학 연구 Vol.27 No.2

One of the most difficult issues facing tax practitioners is dealing with client pressure to adopt overly aggressive reporting positions. As members of a profession, tax practitioners are expected to exercise sensitive moral judgements and maintain the public trust. Although much attention was given to ethical judgements of tax practitioners, very little is known about the ethical judgements and ethical philosophies of other key participants in the tax system like tax auditors, and tax educators. The purpose of this research is to investigate ethical philosophies of three types of tax professionals and to compare with their ethical judgements. The multi-dimensional ethics scale was used to measure the extent to which a hypothetical behavior was consistent with five ethical philosophies(moral equity, contractualism, utilitarianism, relativism, and egoism). To measure the ethical judgement, a refined survey instrument based on prior researches. The sample of tax professionals in this study was consisted of not only tax practitioners but also other tax professionals like tax auditors, and tax educators. Confirmatory factor analysis of responses to a survey instrument supported the existence of four dimensions of the multi-dimensional ethics scale except egoism. Additional analysis using multivariate analysis of variance indicated that there are significant differences among the ethical judgements of tax auditors, tax practitioners, and tax educators. Next, analysis of variance and Duncan's multiple comparison were used to identify specific significant differences among auditors', practitioners', and educators' ethical judgements. The results showed that tax practitioners judged more ethically about the hypothetical tax situation than tax auditors. The above results are encouraging in that finding the existence of ethical philosophies and differences among the ethical judgements between three types of tax professionals. In addition, the results of this study should enable policy makers and tax researchers to more clearly understand tax professionals' ethical judgements. 본 연구는 세무전문가의 범위를 세무사, 세무공무원, 그리고 조세학자 등으로 확장하여 세무업무와 관련된 윤리적 판단에 대해 분석하였다. 이를 위하여 세 부류의 세무전문가들을 대상으로 기존의 선행연구들에서 사용한 다차원적 윤리척도를 이용하여 윤리적 사상의 하위 차원들에 대해 파악하였으며, 그들의 윤리적 판단에 대해 비교분석하였다. 세무전문가의 윤리적 판단을 파악해야 하는 본 연구의 특성상 설문지를 이용하였으며 수집된 설문지 자료를 기초로 세무전문가들의 윤리적 사상의 하위차원들을 파악하기 위해 요인분석을, 그리고 세무전문가 유형별 윤리적 판단의 차이를 검증하기 위해 다변량분산분석을 사용하였다. 요인분석결과, 세 가지 시나리오 중 시나리오 1과 3에 있어서는 도덕적 공평성, 상대주의, 공리주의, 계약주의 네 가지의 윤리사상이 확인되었고 시나리오 2의 경우 공리주의를 제외한 도덕적 공평성, 상대주의, 계약주의 세 가지의 윤리적 사상이 확인되었다. 또한 다변량분산분석 결과 우리나라의 세무대리인, 세무공무원, 그리고 조세학자의 세무업무와 관련된 윤리적 판단에는 차이가 존재하는 것으로 나타났다. 추가적인 개별분산분석결과 세무전문가 집단 중 세무공무원은 세무사보다도 동일한 사안에 대한 윤리적 판단에 있어서 다소 비윤리적인 것으로 인식하고 있으며 조세학자는 이 두 집단의 중간정도의 윤리적 판단을 하고 있는 것으로 나타났다.

헌법불합치 결정의 사유와 효력

김하열(Kim, Ha-Yurl) 한국법학원 2012 저스티스 Vol.- No.128

위헌결정의 형태에 관하여 제기되는 중요한 문제 중의 하나는 언제 단순위헌 결정을 하고, 언제 헌법불합치 결정을 할 것인지의 문제이다. 헌법불합치 결정이 채택되는 빈도가 전반적으로 높고, 특히 이러한 현상이 최근에 더욱 심화되고 있는 만큼 이 문제에 대한 조명의 필요성이 크다. 헌법불합치 결정의 특징은 규범의 적용중지와 입법적 보충으로 요약된다. 이러한 헌법불합치 결정은 합헌질서의 회복을 위하여 입법적 보충이 규범구조적으로 요청되는 경우에 정당화된다. 규범이 지닌 구조적 특성상 입법적 보충이 요청되는 경우로는, 평등규범, 필요한 부수적 입법이 흠결된 제도의 기본조항, 복합규범을 들 수 있다. 자유권 등의 과잉제한으로 인한 위헌성이 인정되나 합헌적 부분과 위헌적 부분의 경계가 불명한 때에 입법형성권을 존중하기 위하여 헌법불합치 결정을 하는 것은 정당하지 않다. 합헌적 국가형벌권의 행사를 확보하면서도 위헌적 형벌권 행사로부터 개인을 구제하는 데에 입법적 개입이 필요하고 적절한 경우에는 형벌조항에 대해서도 적용중지 헌법불합치 결정이 가능하다. 잠정적용 헌법불합치 결정은 과도기적으로 위헌상태를 용인하는 것이 법적 안정성의 면에서 충분히 인정될 사유가 있는 경우에 예외적으로만 허용되며, 형벌조항에 대해서는 이러한 예외는 인정되지 않는다. 헌법불합치 결정은 절차와 효력의 면에서 단순위헌 결정에 비하여 법률관계가 복잡하다. 법적용기관에게 법적용의 어려움이 생기기도 하고, 국민의 권리구제가 신속히 이루어지지 않을 수도 있다. 헌법불합치 결정 후 개선입법이 있을 때까지는 법의 부동성(浮動性)으로 인한 불확정 상태에 빠지게 된다. 따라서 가급적 헌법불합치 결정은 신중하게 내려져야 한다. 그리고 헌법불합치 결정에 대한 명확한 입법적 근거를 마련하는 것이 시급하다. One of the major problems about the unconformity judgement is when the Constitutional Court can render the decision instead of simple unconstitutionality judgement. The distinct characteristic of unconformity judgement can be summarized into the suspension of pending procedures and the legislative supplement. The unconformity judgement can be justified when legislative supplement is normatively required for the recovery of the constitutional oder. Legislative supplement is required due to the structural characteristic of the norm when beneficial law violates equal protection, when legitimate institution of law lacks necessary collateral legislation and so on. When it is deemed proper and necessary to ensure the exercise of punitive power while at the same time providing remedy to individuals who have suffered from unconstitutional exercise of punitive power, a unconformity judgement can be adopted in regards to punitive provisions. Unconformity judgement with the effect of temporary application should be permitted only when it is reasonably justified by the call for legal stability; however, no such exception should be allowed for punitive provisions. Unconformity judgement makes legal order more complicated than simple unconstitutionality judgement in terms of procedure and effects. Ordinary court may have difficulties in applying laws and the remedy process might be delayed. In a period between unconformity judgement and the promulgation of newly supplemented law, there exists a state of indeterminacy of law. Thus, if possible, unconformity judgement should be adopted with discretion. Also, it is pressing to provide a clear legislative basis for unconformity judgement.

징벌적 손해배상을 명한 외국판결의 승인・집행에 관한 고찰

강수미 한국민사소송법학회 2008 民事訴訟 : 韓國民事訴訟法學會誌 Vol.12 No.2

When the judge of the country should decide to the recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgement containing punitive damages, it is a matter for debate whether the foreign judgement is what is on the civil transaction, and whether it is contrary to our good public order and customs that he recognize the effect of it. The primary aim of this paper is to offer some solution to these issues. Where he inspect whether the acknowledgment of the effect is our policy of the law, he must not estimate materials of the foreign judgement. Moreover, international relations formed with international transactions would be respected. It is desirable to pass careful judgement. That is, it causes such a severe result that it is considered unacceptable judging by moral senses and public interests. When it is questionable whether it is offend against our public policy or not, that we recognize the effect of the foreign judgement which has the institution of damages that are different from ours, we ought not to concern about only the discrepancy in the institutions, but have to focus whether it would be permitted to accept the concrete outcomes of the application of foreign laws according to the basic principles of domestic laws. For this, we should delve into and comprehend domestic primary law and order, the fundamental principles of domestic substantial and procedural laws. When the judge of the country should decide to the recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgement containing punitive damages, it is a matter for debate whether the foreign judgement is what is on the civil transaction, and whether it is contrary to our good public order and customs that he recognize the effect of it. The primary aim of this paper is to offer some solution to these issues. Where he inspect whether the acknowledgment of the effect is our policy of the law, he must not estimate materials of the foreign judgement. Moreover, international relations formed with international transactions would be respected. It is desirable to pass careful judgement. That is, it causes such a severe result that it is considered unacceptable judging by moral senses and public interests. When it is questionable whether it is offend against our public policy or not, that we recognize the effect of the foreign judgement which has the institution of damages that are different from ours, we ought not to concern about only the discrepancy in the institutions, but have to focus whether it would be permitted to accept the concrete outcomes of the application of foreign laws according to the basic principles of domestic laws. For this, we should delve into and comprehend domestic primary law and order, the fundamental principles of domestic substantial and procedural laws.