RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색

인기 검색어

    다국어 입력

    http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

    변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

    예시)
    • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
    • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
    닫기
    KCI등재

    규범통제 권한분장을 고려한 예외적 재판소원의 허용 범위 = Exceptional Constitutional Complaints against Judicial Judgments and the Allocation of Authority of the Judicial Review

    한글로보기

    https://www.riss.kr/link?id=A110153778

    • 0

      상세조회
    • 0

      다운로드
    서지정보 열기
    • 내보내기
    • 내책장담기
    • 공유하기
      • URL 복사
    • 오류접수
    인용문이 복사되었습니다.

    부가정보

    다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract) kakao i 다국어 번역

    The current Constitutional Court Act does not permit constitutional complaints against judicial judgments. However, the Constitutional Court has long recognized an exception, allowing constitutional complaints against judicial judgments that apply a statute whose unconstitutionality has been declared by the Constitutional Court. As part of recent judicial reform discussions, judicial judgments are being reconsidered as potential subjects of constitutional complaints. There is a strong argument that, at the very least, constitutional complaints must be permitted against judgments applying a statute declared unconstitutional in order to guarantee the Constitutional Court's authority to declare unconstitutionality.
    This line of argument is fundamentally valid. However, the current Constitution allocates the authority to declare unconstitutionality either to the Constitutional Court or the general courts, depending on whether the norm under review is a statute or a subordinate administrative order. Constitutional complaints, if broadly permitted against all judgments applying a statute declared unconstitutional, would undermine the constitutionally designed division of powers in judicial review. Greater attention should be paid to the final authority granted to the courts to review the constitutionality or legality of administrative orders. This constitutional blueprint for controlling statutes and administrative orders is not an arbitrary division of labor; rather, our Founding Fathers were deeply aware of the essential differences between these two kinds of norms, and they attributed the relevant authorities to the institutions best suited within the judicial system.
    Therefore, this paper explores the optimal scope of the exceptional allowance of constitutional complaints against judicial judgments, specifically focusing on the structure of authority distribution regarding norm control as stipulated by the Constitution. Judicial judgments applying statutes declared unconstitutional should be subject to constitutional complaints in order to guarantee fundamental rights as well as the Constitutional Court’s authority to declare unconstitutionality. On the contrary, judicial judgments applying unconstitutional administrative orders, unless the superior statutes are also unconstitutional, should remain outside the scope of constitutional complaints in order to maintain the constitutional design of the separation of powers between the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court.
    번역하기

    The current Constitutional Court Act does not permit constitutional complaints against judicial judgments. However, the Constitutional Court has long recognized an exception, allowing constitutional complaints against judicial judgments that apply a s...

    The current Constitutional Court Act does not permit constitutional complaints against judicial judgments. However, the Constitutional Court has long recognized an exception, allowing constitutional complaints against judicial judgments that apply a statute whose unconstitutionality has been declared by the Constitutional Court. As part of recent judicial reform discussions, judicial judgments are being reconsidered as potential subjects of constitutional complaints. There is a strong argument that, at the very least, constitutional complaints must be permitted against judgments applying a statute declared unconstitutional in order to guarantee the Constitutional Court's authority to declare unconstitutionality.
    This line of argument is fundamentally valid. However, the current Constitution allocates the authority to declare unconstitutionality either to the Constitutional Court or the general courts, depending on whether the norm under review is a statute or a subordinate administrative order. Constitutional complaints, if broadly permitted against all judgments applying a statute declared unconstitutional, would undermine the constitutionally designed division of powers in judicial review. Greater attention should be paid to the final authority granted to the courts to review the constitutionality or legality of administrative orders. This constitutional blueprint for controlling statutes and administrative orders is not an arbitrary division of labor; rather, our Founding Fathers were deeply aware of the essential differences between these two kinds of norms, and they attributed the relevant authorities to the institutions best suited within the judicial system.
    Therefore, this paper explores the optimal scope of the exceptional allowance of constitutional complaints against judicial judgments, specifically focusing on the structure of authority distribution regarding norm control as stipulated by the Constitution. Judicial judgments applying statutes declared unconstitutional should be subject to constitutional complaints in order to guarantee fundamental rights as well as the Constitutional Court’s authority to declare unconstitutionality. On the contrary, judicial judgments applying unconstitutional administrative orders, unless the superior statutes are also unconstitutional, should remain outside the scope of constitutional complaints in order to maintain the constitutional design of the separation of powers between the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court.

    더보기

    분석정보

    View

    상세정보조회

    0

    Usage

    원문다운로드

    0

    대출신청

    0

    복사신청

    0

    EDDS신청

    0

    동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

    더보기

    주제

    연도별 연구동향

    연도별 활용동향

    연관논문

    연구자 네트워크맵

    공동연구자 (7)

    유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

    이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

    나만을 위한 추천자료

    해외이동버튼