법치행정의 확립을 위한 행정법의 과제 : 처분사유의 추가?변경에 관한 판례의 평가와 보완점

하명호 ( Myeong Ho Ha ) 고려대학교 법학연구원 2010 고려법학 Vol.0 No.58

When an act (or a decision) of an administrative body is challenged in a lawsuit seeking an annulment of the administrative act, the question may arise whether the administrative body may add or alter the grounds for its act having admitted that the purported grounds for its own act did not accord with the objective factual circumstances at the time of the act in question. According to the Supreme Court decision 83Nu396, dated 25 October 1983, "in order to give substantive effect to the rule of law by ensuring an adequate opportunity for the counterpart of an administrative act to defend its case and to protect citizens` reliance on the administrative act, addition or change of grounds for an administrative act is not allowed. However, if the proposed addition or change of grounds shares the `identical factual basis` with the grounds originally advanced, it would exceptionally be allowed." Also see Supreme Court case 85Nu694, dated 21 July 1987. The ruling was repeated in a number of subsequent cases on this issue. Whether to allow an addition or alteration of grounds for an administrative act in the course of a litigation seeking its annulment is a question of striking a balance between procedural propriety of an administrative act and avoiding wasted costs in a litigation. The question is one of value judgment or priority among competing objectives of a litigation. The extent to which an addition or alteration of grounds is to be allowed (if it is to be allowed), will have to be determined by a balancing exercise weighing the values of administrative procedural propriety and judicial objective of speedy and just resolution of a dispute. The defect in the presentation of grounds of an administrative act is regarded by the Supreme Court as a separate ground for an annulment of the administrative act. The administrative body is allowed to cure the defect only in narrowly defined cases. The court examines the wrongfulness of an administrative act as of the time of the act. Limiting the administrative body`s subsequent addition or alteration of grounds is aimed at maintaining the validity and robustness of the requirement that reasonable grounds must be given for an administrative act. These positions adopted by the Court indicate that the proceedings for an annulment are in the nature of a review procedure rather than an appeal procedure. The Court seems to lay more emphasis on ensuring procedural propriety of an administrative act, rather than on the speedy resolution of a dispute. The Court examines whether the `identity of the factual basis` is maintained in order to decide whether or not, and to what extent, the Court is going to allow the proposed addition or alteration of grounds of an administrative act. While this standard is employed in a coherent manner, the standard itself is somewhat formalistic and the Court does not appear to take into account the needs for adopting such a standard in the first place. The standard should be reformulated from the standpoint of ensuring substantive rule of law by guaranteeing procedural rights for citizens. The `identity of factual basis` should be treated merely as one of the criteria, rather than the all-important criterion. Whether to allow addition or alteration of grounds must be determined by examining whether `the counterpart`s right to defend its case is materially affected` as well as whether the identity of factual basis is maintained. An addition or alteration of grounds may affect legal arguments even though the `factual basis` may remain identical. Whether to allow such a change must be determined by comprehensively examining, among others, whether the counterpart would clearly have held a different view as to the efforts, time and expenses required to defend its case. It is hoped that the Supreme Court adopts a somewhat more flexible and comprehensive approach as suggested in this paper.

취소소송에서의 기본적 사실관계 동일성

배병호 성균관대학교 법학연구원 2015 성균관법학 Vol.27 No.1

Administrative Litigation Act has only 48 articles and is estimated as a special law of Civil Procedure Act because of provisions applicable mutatis mutandis of provisions of Article 8, Paragraph 2. But there is something which suggest Criminal Procedure Act to our mind. That is the identity of factual basis in addition or alteration of grounds for an administrative act. Administrative Litigation Act and Civil Procedure Act don’t have the identity of factual basis in addition or alteration of grounds for an administrative act. The identity of factual basis is said the concept from the modification of an indictment. There are some critiques of the vagueness in ground and concept of the identity of factual basis of judicial decisions. Nevertheless there is not any discussions that we should make laws of the identity of factual basis in addition or alteration of grounds for an administrative act. I think that situation is a defect of legislation. The notion of grounds for an administrative act is related that of reasons for an administrative act. The presentation of reasons for an administrative act in Administrative Procedure Act should suppose that Agent must suggest presentation of reasons and grounds for an administrative act to a party. When a party has not conceded reasons and grounds for an administrative act of agent, he institutes lawsuit. There are some debates of the differences between reasons for an administrative act and grounds for an administrative act. And without of Article in Administrative Litigation Act, can Supreme Court decide addition or alteration of grounds for an administrative act litigation pending. Nowadays Supreme Court has held that Agent is able to present addition or alteration of grounds for an administrative act on the condition of identity of factual basis to protect the substantial constitutionalism and the party’s trust. Whether the judicial precedent is approved or not, Administrative Litigation Act should be amended for the people. 행정소송법은 그 조문 수가 46개에 불과하고 제8조 제2항에서 법원조직법과 민사소송법 및 민사집행법의 규정을 준용하고 있어 민사소송법의 특별법으로 평가되기도 한다. 그런데 형사소송법의 규정을 연상하게 하는 부분이 있다. 그것은 취소소송 중 처분사유의 추가ㆍ변경에서 등장하는 기본적 사실관계 동일성이란 표현이다. 행정소송법 조문에는 처분사유의 추가ㆍ변경과 기본적 사실관계의 동일성이란 단어가 없다. 기본적 사실관계의 동일성이란 용어는 형사소송법의 공소장의 변경에서 차용한 개념으로 추정하는 견해가 있다. 대법원이 사용하고 있는 기본적 사실관계의 동일성은 그 근거와 개념이 명확하지 않다는 비판이 있고, 이를 둘러싼 논의도 적지 않다. 그럼에도 불구하고 그 동안의 행정소송법 개정안과 개정의견 등에서 처분사유의 추가ㆍ변경과 기본적 사실관계의 동일성 등을 실정법으로 규정하자는 논의는 거의 없었다. 행정소송법 조문에도 없고 준용하는 민사소송법 등에도 나오지 않고 오히려 준용되지 않는 형사소송법상의 용어를 차용한 처분사유의 추가ㆍ변경과 기본적 사실관계의 동일성을 판례에만 맡기는 것은 문제가 있다고 할 것이다. 비교 대상이 무엇인지 그리고 기본적 사실관계의 개념이 무엇인지에 대한 명확성이 확보되지 않은 상태에서 수차례의 개정안에서 명문의 규정을 두려고 노력하지 않는 것은 입법의 미비라고 아니 할 수 없다. 취소소송 중 처분사유라는 개념은 행정절차법 제23조의 처분의 이유제시와 관련된다. 처분의 이유 제시는 원칙적으로 당사자에게 처분의 근거와 이유를 제시하도록 한 것으로 모든 처분에 대한 것이다. 행정청이 처분의 이유를 제시하는 경우에는 처분의 원인이 되는 사실과 근거가 되는 법령 또는 자치법규의 내용을 구체적으로 명시하여야 한다. 처분의 상대방은 행정청이 제시한 처분의 근거와 이유에 불만이 있을 경우 행정심판이나 행정소송을 제기할 수 있다. 처분의 이유와 행정쟁송법상 처분사유와 개념적 구별에 관한 논의가 있지만, 행정처분의 취소를 구하는 행정심판이나 항고소송 계속 중에 행정청이 행정처분 당시에 결정의 근거로 제시되지 아니한 사유를 새로이 제출하거나 변경할 수 있는가의 문제가 제기된다. 이러한 처분사유의 추가ㆍ변경에 관한 규정이 행정심판법이나 행정소송법에 전혀 없음에도 불구하고 현재 대법원은 실질적 법치주의와 행정처분의 상대방인 국민에 대한 신뢰보호라는 견지에서 처분청은 당초 처분의 근거로 삼은 사유와 기본적 사실관계가 동일성이 인정되는 한도 내에서만 다른 사유를 추가하거나 변경할 수 있을 뿐, 기본적 사실관계와 동일성이 인정되지 않는 별개의 사실을 들어 처분사유로 주장함은 허용되지 아니한다는 입장이다. 준용행정소송법을 탈피하여 독립적인 법을 만드는 것은 국민들의 권리구제에도 이바지할 것이다.

2019년 행정법(I) 중요판례평석

김용섭 대한변호사협회 2020 人權과 正義 : 大韓辯護士協會誌 Vol.- No.488

The Supreme Court delivered various types of judgment on the Administrative Law for the last one year from January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2018. This article deals Major Judicial Precedents of Administrative Law(I) in 2019, such as the introductory theorie of the administrative law, the administrative action law and the administrative protection law (except for the area of special administrative law) This article tried to understand tendencies and trends shown in the decisions on the Administrative Law delivered by the Supreme Court for the last one year, not in the method of making in-depth analyses on particular individual decisions on the Administrative Law or introducing comprehensively a number of decisions, but in the method of impartially selecting the Supreme Court’s important precedents worthy of study in the aspects of legal principles and thoery to make general comments. Discussions on such important decisions of the Supreme Court in Administrative law are developed in different subjects such as introductory theorie of the administrative law, the administrative action law, national compensation law and administrative litigation law. 2019. 1. 1.부터 2019. 12. 31.까지 1년 동안 대법원은 행정법분야에 관하여 다양한 유형의 판결을 선고하였다. 본 논문에서는 행정법각론의 영역을 제외한 행정법 서론과 행정작용법 및 행정구제법의 영역을 중심으로 대법원에서 선고한 2019년 행정법(I) 중요판례를 고찰대상으로 한다. 개개의 사건을 망라하여 분석하는 방식도 아니고, 특정 판례에 한정하여 심층적으로 평석하는 방식도 아닌, 양자의 중간적 입장에서 법리적으로나 학술적으로 검토할 가치가 있는 중요 대법원판례를 선별하여, 이에 대하여 개괄적으로 평석을 하는 방식으로 행정법의 대법원판례의 동향과 흐름을 파악하였다. 아울러 대법원의 중요 행정법 판례를 행정법서론, 행정작용법, 행정절차법, 국가보상법 및 행정소송법으로 구분하여 검토하였다.