헌법재판소의 변형결정에 대한 비판적 검토 = A Review on the Modified Forms of Decisions of Constitutional Court in S. Korea

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

  Article 45 of the Constitutional Court Act under the name of "Decision of Unconstitutionality" stipulates "The Constitutional Court shall decide only whether or not the requested statute or any provision of the statute is un-constitutional: Provided, That if it is deemed that the whole provisions of the statute are unable to enforce due to a decision of unconstitutionality of the requested provision, a decision of unconstitutionality may be made on the whole statute." We could say that it provided only two forms of decisions, constitutional or unconstitutional as measures of the norms control.<BR>  But the fact the dichotomized forms of decision might be not sufficient to deal with all the various problems soon became realized. So from the early time on, the Constitution Court introduced "modified forms of decisions" such as those of "limited constitutionality" "limited unconstitutionality", and "nonconformity to the Constitution".<BR>  The decision of limited constitutionality means that of the object of constitutional review of statutes, some part of it the Constitutional Court thinks is constitutional would be declared as constitutional. On the other hand, the Constitutional Court could declare some part of the object of constitutional review of statutes is unconstitutional. It regards two forms of decisions are basically the same in the meaning that two are all "partly un-constitutional decision in quality". And the decision of nonconformity to the Constitution is declared when a relevant object is contrary to Constitution but in consideration of some aspects which Constitutional Court thinks are related to the essential part of stability of legal system, it needs to make the object have a formal effect as a law up to some future point.<BR>  But we could say that the attitude of the Constitutional Court toward decisions of limited constitutionality and limited unconstitutionality has the possibility of intrusion of the right of general courts on the interpretation of statutes, which is overall thought to be the right of general courts.<BR>  Reviewing several problems over decisions of limited constitutionality and limited unconstitutionality, I suggested in conclusion that in the decision of limited constitutionality except the part declared as constitutional it means unconstitutional but to the contrary to it, in the decision of limited unconstitutionality except the part declared as unconstitutional it means the Constitutional Court reserve the attitude of if it is constitutional or unconstitutional. And I contended that the Constitutional Court must not use the form of decision of limited constitutionality as much as possible, which is inevitably to include indefinite concept producing many problems.<BR>  In the decision of nonconformity to Constitution we could find the easiness of Constitutional Court"s dependence on it. Under strict conditions made by a notion that it must be a very rare exception, it"s declaration should be limited as much as possible, especially in the case of "continuous application" of when a law is declared as contrary to Constitution but in the fear of a blank the declaration causes inevitably is given the room of application.<BR>  Anyway we have to find elaborate standards for modified forms of decisions, by which Korean Constitutional Court could harden the reputation as a guardian of the Constitution.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 개설
  Ⅱ. 한정합헌결정
  Ⅲ. 한정위헌결정
  Ⅳ. 헌법불합치결정
  Ⅴ. 결론
  참고문헌
  〈Abstract〉
  

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 初宿正典?須賀博志, "聯邦憲法裁判所法" 東京: 成文堂 2003

2 한병채, "헌법재판의 결정과 변형결정" 헌법재판소 3 : 1992

3 전광석, "헌법재판에 있어서의 결정주문의 유형과 효력" 헌법재판소 2 : 1991

4 황도수, "헌법재판실무연구" 지구촌 2003

5 "헌법재판소의 판례검색 사이트"

6 남복현, "헌법재판소 제4기 재판초기 운영실태와 제언" (3636) : 2008

7 문광삼, "헌법재판소 변형결정의 유형과 그 문제점" 헌법재판소 7 : 1996

8 남복현, "헌법재판소 결정의 효력에 관한 쟁점 및 해결방안" 헌법재판소 7 : 1996

9 전정환, "헌법재판소 결정의 효력에 관한 일반적 고찰" 헌법재판소 7 : 1996

10 신평, "헌법재판법" 법문사 2007

11 한병채, "헌법재판론" 고시계 1994

12 이석연, "헌법소원심판의 결정유형과 효력에 관한 고찰" 헌법재판소 1 : 1990

13 한수웅, "헌법불합치결정의 헌법적 근거와 효력-독일에서의 판례와 이론을 중심으로-" 헌법재판소 6 : 1995

14 방승주, "헌법불합치결정의 문제점과 그 개선방안" 한국헌법학회 2007

15 이명웅, "합헌적 법률해석과 한정위헌결정-헌법재판소 2002. 7. 18. 선고 2000헌바57 결정에 대한 홍기태 대법원 재판연구관의 연구와 관련하여-?, 법률신문 2002. 5. 9.자"

16 신현직, "합헌적 법률해석과 변형결정의 문제점" 박영사 1993

17 정종섭, "제4판 헌법소송법" 박영사 2007

18 허영, "제2판 헌법소송법론" 박영사 2007

19 헌법재판소, "제1개정판 헌법재판실무제요"

20 유남석, "이른바 한정위헌결정의 허용성 및 기속력 유무" 법원도서관 92 : 2001

21 윤진수, "위헌법률의 효력" 헌법재판소 1 : 1990

22 황우여, "위헌결정의 형식" 헌법재판소 1 : 1990

23 김시철, "우리 위헌법률심판절차 등의 심판대상(심사범위), 헌법실무연구 제4권" 박영사 2003

24 "각종 국내 헌법교과서"

25 김시철, "?우리 위헌법률심판제도와 헌법재판소 결정의 효력?" 한국법학원 (90) : 2006

26 김명수, "?변형결정(한정합헌, 한정위헌 및 헌법불합치결정)의 기속력과 법원의 재판?" 법원도서관 75 : 1997