국가의 기본권개입의 한계와 정당성 심사 = Limits of Intervention in the Basic Right by State and Judicial Review of Legitimacy

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This paper has investigated about the limits of intervention in basic right by the state, the criteria for judging the legitimacy and the problems in the process of applying these criteria. The Intervention in the basic right by the state can be divided according to the nature and content of basic rights, the type of provisions on basic right in the Constitution and the content which comes from state guarantee obligations for basic rights in Article 10 Section 2. The Limit of the intervention in the basic rights of the state is to be set differently according to the type of intervention and the criteria for judging the legitimacy should also be applied differently. Principles for ensuring the basic rights by the state is a limitation of fundamental rights as an exception. Accordingly Constitution stipulates in Article 37, paragraph 2，concerning limits on the restriction of basic rights. The principle of excess prohibition restrictions as the criteria for judging the legitimacy about restriction of the basic rights in accordance with the Constitution Article 37, paragraph 2 are being treated seriously. On the other hand, there are the principle of excess prohibition restrictions as well as the principle of due process and principle for the protecting trust profit as criteria for judging the legitimacy about restriction of the basic rights. Thus, competition may occur between these criteria. To applying all competing criteria at the same time in this case is concerned about get a contradiction with one another and also uneconomical. In this case, the problem on the application that will be preferentially applied to any criteria is caused. When the principle of due process and the excessive prohibition is competition, the Constitutional Court applied them in order. In contrast, in contrast, in this paper we describe it only makes sense to apply the due process principle. This opinion was based on the constitutional status of due process. When the principle of the excessive prohibition and principle of the protecting trust profit is competition in area of the basic right, it applies the principle of the excessive prohibition with respect to the contents of the restriction first and principle of the protecting trust profit in connection with the law the facts of the past, which includes the facts of the past.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 김학성, "헌법학원론" PNC(피앤씨미디어) 2015

2 정종섭, "헌법학원론" 박영사 2014

3 김철수, "헌법학개론" 박영사 2005

4 한수웅, "헌법학" 법문사 2016

5 성낙인, "헌법학" 법문사 2012

6 이부하, "헌법영역에서 기본권보호의무" 한국비교공법학회 8 (8): 123-140, 2007

7 허영, "헌법과 헌법이론" 박영사 2015

8 이우영, "표현의 자유 법리와 헌법재판소의 위헌법률심사기준" 법학연구소 53 (53): 285-317, 2012

9 표명환, "입법자의 기본권보호의무와 헌법적 통제" 한국헌법학회 11 (11): 211-241, 2005

10 이부하, "비례성원칙과 과소보호금지원칙" 한국헌법학회 13 (13): 273-300, 2007

11 석인선, "미국헌법상 기본적 권리(fundamental rights)론의 전개와 평가" 세계헌법학회한국학회 13 (13): 1-22, 2007

12 권혜영, "미국 연방헌법상 헌법에 열거되지 아니한 권리의 분석방법 - 실체적 적법절차론과 수정 제9조에 의한 분석론" 한국비교공법학회 10 (10): 3-28, 2009

13 정문석, "독일헌법" 전남대학교출판부 2009

14 허완중, "기본권보호의무에서 과소보호금지원칙과 과잉금지원칙의 관계" 한국공법학회 37 (37): 201-227, 2008

15 김문현, "기본권 영역별 위헌심사의 기준과 방법" 헌법재판소 19 : 2008

16 황치연, "과잉금지원칙의 내용" 한국공법학회 24 (24): 277-314, 1996

17 표명환, "“헌법에 열거되지 아니한 국민의 자유와 권리”에 관한 체계적 고찰" 한국비교공법학회 12 (12): 81-104, 2011