상권 : 국가배상에 관한 주요 판례분석 -“법령위반(위법성)”을 중심으로-

이일세 ( Il Se Lee ) 안암법학회 2014 안암 법학 Vol.0 No.43

According to the constitutional state principle, all administrative activities are expected to be legal. However, in reality, causing damages to the people by illegal administrative activities are inevitable. Therefore, in order to implement the constitutional state principle, devices that regulate illegal activities are required. Moreover, systems to relieve the damages caused by the illegal administrative activities are necessary, which can be represented by the government liability system. Article 2 of the Government Liability Act provides the conditions of government liability for governmental employee`s tort. Given that the government liability has the character of ‘tort liability’, illegality and intention/negligence are the key factors among the conditions. In particular, there are various opinions on the definition of illegality or the standard of judgment, which is described by a Japanese scholar an ‘extremely confusing situation’. This paper lays emphasis on the illegality problem among the conditions of government liability caused by government employee`s tort. First of all, the text of the law about the illegality of the administrative activities in Germany, Japan and Korea is considered, as well as its meanings. Then, following problems are considered: problem whether the essence of illegality in the government liability lies on the activity or the result; problem whether illegality in complaint lawsuit and illegality in lawsuit for government liability is the same; problem whether the protection of private interest of the law that imposes the obligations to government employees is related to illegality or the causality in the government liability. These problems will be considered mainly through the judicial precedents in Japan and Korea.

행정심판의 재결에 대한 행정소송

이일세(IL-SE LEE) 강원대학교 비교법학연구소 2015 江原法學 Vol.44 No.-

행정처분에 의해 권리를 침해당한 자는 취소소송을 제기하기 전에 행정심판을 통하여 구제를 받을 수 있는데, 이 경우 행정심판의 재결에 의해서도 만족할 만한 권리구제를 받지 못하여 다시금 취소소송을 제기하는 경우에는 원처분이나 재결중 어느 것을 대상으로 하여야 하는지가 문제된다. 이에 관하여 입법론적으로 원처분주의와 재결주의가 대립하고 있다. 원처분주의란 원처분의 위법을 다투는 경우에는 원처분을 대상으로 취소소송을 제기하도록 하고, 재결에 대해서는 재결 자체에 고유한 위법이 있는 경우에만 취소소송을 제기할 수 있도록 하는 것을 말한다. 따라서 원처분주의하에서는 원처분의 위법을 이유로 재결에 대한 취소소송을 제기하거나 재결취소소송에서 원처분의 위법을 주장하는 것은 허용되지 않는다. 이에 대해 재결주의란 처분에 불복하여 행정심판의 재결을 거친 경우에는 원처분은 재결에 흡수된 것으로 보아 최종의 처분이라 할 수 있는 재결에 대해서만 취소소송을 제기할 수 있도록 하는 것을 말한다. 따라서 재결주의에서는 당연히 재결취소소송에서 원처분의 위법도 다툴 수 있게 된다. 이 논문에서는 재결취소소송에 관한 독일과 일본의 입법례를 살펴본 다음, 우리나라 행정소송법 제19조가 규정하고 있는 “재결 자체의 고유한 위법”이 무엇을 의미하는지에 대해 중점적으로 고찰하였다. 특히 재결의 내용상 위법이 재결 자체의 고유한 위법에 해당하는지가 논의의 핵심이다. 마지막으로는, 재결취소소송에서의 심리결과 재결 자체에 고유한 위법이 없다고 인정되는 경우에 법원은 각하판결을 하여야 하는지 아니면 기각판결을 하여야 하는지에 관한 학설 및 판례의 입장을 검토하였다. One who’s rights have been violated by an administrative act can be relieved through the administrative appeals before raising a litigation for withdrawal. If the decision of the administrative appeals was unsatisfactory and the person would like to bring in litigation for withdrawal, it raises the problem of whether the original administrative act is the object of the litigation or the decision of the administrative appeals is. Regarding this, on the aspect of theory of legislation, two theories are in opposition: the theory of original administrative act and the theory of decision of the administrative appeals. The supporters for original administrative act assert that the object of the litigation for withdrawal also should be the original administrative act, and the decision of the administrative appeals can be the object of the litigation only when it has its own illegal aspects. Therefore they argue that the decision of the administrative appeals should not be questioned of its legal issues in litigation for withdrawal on the ground of illegality of the original administrative act. On the other hand, the supporters for the decision of the administrative appeals assume that the original administrative act is absorbed into the decision of the administration appeals and therefore the litigation for withdrawal should be raised against the final decision. This paper will first review the German and Japanese legislation about the litigation against the decision of the administrative appeals. Then it will examine what “the decision of the administrative appeal’s own illegality”, from Administrative Litigation Act article 19, means. Especially, whether the illegality in the contents of the decision exists only in the decision itself is the essence of the discussion.

영유아보육법상 보조금의 부정수령 및 유용에 관한 판례분석

이일세 ( Il-se Lee ) 안암법학회 2017 안암 법학 Vol.0 No.54

영유아의 건강한 보육과 보호자의 원활한 경제적ㆍ사회적 활동을 돕기 위해 제정된 영유아보육법은 그 입법취지를 실현하기 위하여 국가나 지방자치단체로 하여금 영유아의 보호자에게 보육료나 양육수당을 지원하며 어린이집에 대해서는 어린이집 설치ㆍ증축ㆍ개축ㆍ보수비, 보육교사 인건비, 교재ㆍ교구비 등을 지원하도록 하고 있다. 다른 한편 영유아보육법은 복지부정을 막기 위하여 보조금을 부정 수령하거나 유용한 경우에 반환명령, 어린이집운영정지ㆍ폐쇄, 원장자격정지, 형사처벌 등의 제재수단을 마련하고 있다. 그런데 그동안 위 제도의 시행기간이 비교적 짧고 관련 법규정이 여러 차례 개정됨으로써 시행과정에서 많은 문제점을 노출시켰으며, 판례 또한 하급심판결이 대법원에서 파기되는 경우가 많았다. 이 논문에서는 영유아보육법상 보조금의 부정수령ㆍ유용에 대한 제재수단에 관해 살펴 본 다음, 이와 관련한 판례의 입장을 분석하고 문제점과 개선방안을 제시하였는바, 그 주요 내용은 다음과 같다. 영유아보육법상의 보조금 가운데 가장 논란이 되었던 것은 제34조에 의한 보육료가 어린이집 설치ㆍ운영자에 대한 보조금인지 영유아의 보호자에 대한 보조금인지의 문제였는바, 하급심에서 엇갈린 판결이 나왔으나2014. 6. 12. 대법원 판결에 의해 후자로 정리되었다. 영유아보육법은 보육료나 보조금의 지원에 관한 구체적 사항은 보건 복지부장관이 정하도록 위임하고 있으며, 이에 따라 보건복지부장관은 매년 `보육사업안내`라는 지침을 발간하여 보조금의 지원요건, 지원절차, 지원액수, 환수 등에 관한 세부적 사항을 규율하고 있다. 영유아보육과 관련한 보조금에 관한 사항 중 국민의 권익과 관련하여 본질적으로 중요한 것은 `보육사업안내`가 아니라 법령에서 직접 규율할 필요가 있으며, 부득이하게 세부적인 사항을 보건복지부장관에게 위임하는 경우에도 보다 구체적으로 범위를 정하여 위임할 필요가 있다. 어린이집 설치ㆍ운영자가 보조금을 유용한 경우의 제재와 관련해서도 현행법은 커다란 문제점을 지니고 있다. 어린이집 설치ㆍ운영자가 어린이 집에 대한 보조금과 보조금이 아닌 금원이 혼화되어 있는 운영계좌에서 일부를 사적 용도로 지출한 경우에 위 금원 중 어느 부분에서 지출된 것인지 특정하기가 불가능하므로 반환명령, 어린이집운영정지 및 원장자격정지 등의 제재처분을 내릴 수 없다는 것이 판례의 입장인바, 그렇다면 어린이집 설치ㆍ운영자가 운영계좌에서 보조금을 유용하더라도 별다른 제재조치를 취할 수 없는 문제가 발생한다. 앞으로 이에 관한 입법적인 보완이 필요하다고 할 것이다. The purpose of Infant Care Act (ICA) is to contribute to promoting the welfare of infants and their families by fostering infants to healthy members of the society by nurturing their minds and bodies, and their sound education, and by facilitating their guardians` economic and social activities. In order to fulfil its purpose, it requires the govern- ment to provide infant care fees or child home-care allowances to the guardians, and support the child-care center operators with various expenses such as expenses incurred in establishingㆍexpandingㆍimproving or repairing childcare centers, personnel expenses for infant care teachers, expenses for teaching materials, and vehicle operating expenses. On the other hand, the ICA provides various means to prevent wasteful spending of public funding - such as order to refund subsidies, business suspension or closure of child-care center, suspension of qualification as principal of child-care center, or criminal penalty. However, since the ICA has not been in force for long and has been revised several times, there has been some problems raised throughout its enforcement. Also, there has been many lower court cases that was overturned by the supreme court. In this paper, I first go over the subsidies on the ICA and the penalties against the wrongful use of subsidies. And then I examine the court`s position and suggest some solutions for the problems raised regarding the ICA. The main issues are as follows. The most debated problem regarding the ICA subsidies was whether the child-care fee in Article 34 is for the operator of child-care center or the guardian of the infant. In the lower court cases there had been divided opinions, but in June 12, 2014, the supreme court stated that it was for the latter. It seems that the supreme court`s decision is correct considering the current ICA, but this interpretation raises the problem that it is difficult to prevent the operators from falsely altering the amount subsidy. Therefore further revision is required regarding this issue. The ICA delegates the details of free infant care to the Minister of Health and Welfare. Therefore the Minister of Health and Welfare publishes annual guideline called `Guide for Child-care business` and determines details such as application requirements, procedure, and refunds of subsidies. However, there are some details in the guideline that was not delegated by the ICA, such as the refund of the subsidy. The important matters regarding the infant care subsidy that is closely related to people`s rights, should be regulated in the law itself, and when it is necessary to delegate it, the ground and scope needs to be specified by the law. The current ICA has a major problem regarding the instance when the operator of child-care center misappropriates the subsidy. When the operator of child-care center consumes for private use from an account that holds both the subsidy and non-subsidy funding, the court states that it is impossible to order the refund of subsidy because it is impossible to separate the subsidy from the non-subsidy funding. Therefore it is impossible to take punitive action against the operator even if they use the subsidy for private use. So further revision is required regarding this issue.

도로교통법 위반 운전자 등에 대한 범칙금ㆍ벌점 및 과태료 부과에 관한 고찰

이일세(IL-SE LEE) 강원대학교 비교법학연구소 2018 江原法學 Vol.53 No.-

오늘날 자동차 보급이 증가하면서 운전은 국민생활의 중요한 일부분이 되었으며, 또한 국민은 교통사고의 위험에도 크게 노출되어 있다. 따라서 국민의 생명과 재산을 위협하는 교통사고를 줄이기 위해서는 운전자나 보행자가 도로교통법을 준수하도록 하는 것이 필요하다. 도로교통법은 도로교통법상의 각종 의무를 위반한 운전자에 대하여 징역, 벌금, 구류, 과료 등의 형벌을 과하는 경우도 있고 행정질서벌인 과태료를 과하는 경우도 있다. 도로교통법 제162조에서 정한 범칙행위에 대해서는 경찰서장이 형벌에 갈음해서 범칙금을 납부하도록 하는 통고처분을 할 수 있다. 그리고 위반행위가 무인단속카메라 등에 적발되어 실제 운전자가 누구인지 밝혀지지 않은 경우에는 경찰서장이나 시장 등은 ‘고용주 등’에게 과태료를 부과할 수 있다. 지방경찰청장은 도로교통법을 위반한 사람에 대하여 행정자치부령으로 정하는 바에 따라 위반 및 피해의 정도를 고려하여 벌점을 부과할 수 있으며, 이 벌점은 운전면허를 취소하거나 면허정지처분을 할 때 그 기준으로 사용될 수 있다. 다른 한편, 성인인 국민 대다수가 운전을 하는 현실에서 누구나 신호위반ㆍ제한속도위반 등과 같은 도로교통법 위반으로 인해 제재를 받을 수 있는데, 제재의 정도가 지나치게 무겁거나 형평성에 위배되어서는 안 되고, 제재의 절차도 국민에게 지나치게 불편을 주어서도 안 되며, 또한 제재처분에 대해서는 적절한 불복방법이 마련되어야 한다. 이 논문에서는 도로교통법 위반에 대한 제재 중 가장 일반적인 범칙금, 벌점 및 과태료에 관한 현행법 규정과 판례를 분석하고 그 문제점을 지적하였다. 그리고 마지막으로는 입법론적으로 개선되어야 할 점을 제시하였다. Driving is becoming an important part of people’s life with the spread of automobiles these days, and the public is also exposed to the risk of traffic accidents. Therefore, to reduce traffic accidents that threaten people"s lives and property, it is necessary to ensure that drivers or pedestrians comply with the Road Traffic Act. The Road Traffic Act imposes imprisonment with prison labor, fine, misdemeanor imprisonment, minor fine, or administrative fine on the drivers who violate various obligations on the Road Traffic Act. For violation of regulations provided for in Article 162 of the Road Traffic Act, the chief of a police station may issue a payment of a penalty by notification disposition, instead of fine, etc. If the violation is detected by unmanned traffic regulation equipment and the actual driver is unidentified, the chief of police station or the mayor may impose a penalty on “employer, etc.” The commissioner of a district police agency may give demerit points to anyone who violates the Road Traffic Act according to the extent of the violation, the resulting damage, etc. as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of the Interior in order for such demerit points to be used as a basis for revoking drivers" licences or suspending the effects of drivers" licences. On the other hand, since the majority of adults are driving, anyone can be punished for violating the Road Traffic Act such as signal violation or speed limit violation. The degree of sanction should not be overly heavy or violate equity, the procedure of sanction should not be too complicated, and appropriate means of objection should be provided. In this paper, I critically analyze the provisions under current law and precedents regarding penalty, demerit points and administrative fine, which are the most common form of penalties. Finally, I suggest some legislative improvements.

학교환경위생정화구역에서의 시설제한

이일세(Lee Il-Se) 한국토지공법학회 2007 土地公法硏究 Vol.35 No.-

  School Sanitation Act provides that the region within 200 meters from the boundary of school must be protected as a School Environmental Sanitation and Cleanup Zone (SESC Zone). In the SESC Zone, it is forbidden to establish the harmful facilities to the students such as hotels, dance halls or LPG stations. It is necessary to regulate the harmful facilities in the SESC Zone to protect the educational environment, but it may violate the fundamental rights of people, especially the freedom of occupation. <BR>  The main contents of this paper are as follows:<BR>  (1) Gas station and power transmission tower must be included in the forbidden facilities in the SESC Zone. Gas station has the probability of explosion, and power transmission tower radiates the electromagnetic waves, so they are very dangerous facilities to the students. <BR>  (2) When a facility is newly included in the forbidden facilities in the SESC Zone, the facility which is already located in the SESC Zone must be moved or closed within five years. But, five years of legal delay would not be enough to cover the invested costs. So it is needed to compensate by money for the loss. <BR>  (3) If a school is built near the harmful facility to the students, that facility must be moved or closed immediately, because School Sanitation Act has no provision about the legal delay for such a case. So it is needed to prepare the remedies for the owner of facility in this case.

부작위위법확인소송의 쟁점에 관한 고찰

이일세(Lee Il-Se) 강원대학교 비교법학연구소 2012 江原法學 Vol.35 No.-

Administrative Litigation Act established in 1984 adopts the lawsuit against illegal administrative omission instead of the lawsuit for mandatory decision. There had been criticism on this, in the sense that it is an indirect system in the remedy for illegal administrative omission. Moreover, current law regarding the lawsuit against illegal administrative omission has several controversy on its interpretation. The main points are as follows. First, administrative omission is premised on the opposite party’s application, and in this case whether the ‘existence of right to application’ is the condition of omission or not is the issue. On the aspect that Civil Petitions Treatment Act §15 stipulates the general duty of administrative office to respond to the applications, it is right to say that the existence of right to application is not requirement for omission. Secondly, regarding the standing to the sue, Administrative Litigation Act §36 stipulates that “the applicants only those who have legal interest to ask to confirm the illegality of an administrative omission can raise it.” Here, the clause ‘those who have legal interest to ask to confirm the illegality of an administrative omission’ is unnecessary and therefore can be deleted. Because the lawsuit against illegal administrative omission limits the standing to ‘the applicants.’ Thirdly, the theories regarding the range of examination on the lawsuit against illegal administrative omission varies. It seems right to say that on the aspect of citizens’ remedy for violation of rights, in the case of obligatory administrative act, the court can decide if the administrative office has the obligation to give the administrative act as applied. Lastly, if the lawsuit for mandatory decision is adopted, it is questionable whether the lawsuit against illegal administrative omission should be kept or not. It seems that since the lawsuit against illegal administrative omission is indirect means in the remedy for violation of rights, it is right that the lawsuit against illegal administrative omission should be abolished if the lawsuit for mandatory decision is adopted.

행정대집행의 요건에 관한 고찰

이일세(Lee Il-Se) 한국토지공법학회 2007 土地公法硏究 Vol.37 No.1

주택재개발 · 재건축사업에 관한 판례분석

이일세(IL-SE LEE) 강원대학교 비교법학연구소 2011 江原法學 Vol.33 No.-

In the past, housing redevelopment project was regulated by the Urban Areas Redevelopment Act and housing reconstruction project by the Act on the Promotion of Housing Construction. There were many criticisms regarding this situation, because although these two projects have similar nature, they were being regulated by different laws. Accordingly, in December 30, 2002, the Act on the Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents was established to regulate two projects with one law and one procedure. As the law system regarding the urban housing renewal project changed, the new precedents were set. If there were flaws in the resolution of association’s general assembly regarding the establishment of redevelopment(reconstruction) project association, whether the lawsuit should be regarding the effect of the association establishment resolution, or the effect of the mayor’s approval on the establishment of association can be a problem. In the past, assuming that th mayor's approval on the establishment of the association corresponds to authorization, the Supreme Court stated that the mayor's approval on the establishment is not effective if there are flaws in the basic action of the establishment, and therefore no need to nullify the mayor’s approval because of the flaws in the resolution. However, in September 2009, the Supreme Court stated that the mayor’s approval on the establishment of association has the characteristic of concession, so if there were flaws in the association establishment resolution, nullifying the approval must be requested, setting the mayor that approved it as the defendant, and a lawsuit on the effect of such a resolution is not acceptable. To request an approval on the management disposal planning, more than half of members of association should agree. Regarding this, if there were flaws in the association establishment resolution about management disposal planning, there will be a problem on how to solve this. In the past, the Supreme Court stated that the members of association still had right to institute a lawsuit to ask for nullify the resolution, after the mayor’s approval on the management disposal planning. However, in September 2009, the Supreme Court stated that the lawsuit against the reconstruction association, which is an administrative agency, concerning the effect of the association establishment resolution about the management disposal planning corresponds to party litigation by the Administrative Proceedings Act. If the mayor approves the management disposal planning of the association, the management disposal planning takes effect as an administrative action, so nullifying the management disposal planning should be requested through an appeal suit, with the reason of flaws in the association assembly resolution. Apart from it, a lawsuit regarding the effect of resolution of the association’s assembly is not allowed as lawful.

행정소송에 있어서 집행정지제도의 현황 및 개선방안에 관한 고찰

이일세(IL-SE LEE) 한국비교공법학회 2013 공법학연구 Vol.14 No.1

공공기관의 정보공개에 관한 판례분석

이일세(IL-SE LEE) 강원대학교 비교법학연구소 2015 江原法學 Vol.45 No.-

행정의 민주화를 달성하고 국민의 권익을 보장하기 위해서는 무엇보다도 공공기관이 보유하고 있는 정보에 대한 국민의 접근권이 보장되어야 한다. 이를 위해 1996년 정보공개법이 제정되어 1998년부터 시행되고 있다. 다른 한편, 이러한 정보공개의 필요성은 국민의 사생활의 비밀보호, 업무의 공정한 수행확보 등 다른 법익과 충돌될 우려가 있으므로, 정보공개여부를 결정함에 있어서는 공개에 의하여 보호되는 국민의 알권리의 보장과 국정에 대한 국민의 참여 및 국정운영의 투명성 확보 등의 이익과 비공개에 의하여 보호되는 사생활의 비밀보호, 업무수행의 공정성 확보 등의 이익을 비교형량하여 결정하여야 할 것이다. 정보공개법은 공공기관이 보유 · 관리하는 정보는 원칙적으로 공개의 대상이 된다고 하면서, 다만 제9조 제1항 각호에 규정된 정보는 비공개 대상으로 규정하고 있는바, 비공개의 요건에 관해 ‘국가의 중대한 이익을 현저히 해칠 우려’, ‘업무의 공정한 수행이나 연구 · 개발에 현저한 지장’ 등과 같은 추상적이고 불확정한 법개념을 사용함으로써 그 해석 · 적용에 어려움이 있다. 이 논문에서는 정보의 공개ㆍ비공개사유에 관한 판례의 입장을 분석하고 그 특이점과 문제점을 검토하였다. 특이점으로는 정보공개사건에 있어서는 원심의 파기환송율이 높은 점과 판례를 통하여 법령개정을 이끈 점 등을 들 수 있으며, 문제점으로는 정보공개법 제9조 제1항 제1호에서 ‘법률에서 위임한 명령’의 범위와 관련하여 총리령ㆍ부령을 제외한 점과 대법원이 불분명하게 판례를 변경한 점 등을 들 수 있다. For the democratization of administration and the protection of people’s legal interests, the access right for the information kept and managed by public institution must be guaranteed above all. According to the predominant opinion, the right to request information disclosure comes from the people’s rights to know, guaranteed by the constitution. In Korea, Official Information Disclosure Act was established in 1996 and was enforced since 1998. On the other hand, this necessity to disclose information may collide with other rights such as privacy protection or fair performance of duties. Therefore, in order to decide what to disclose, we need to balance between the need to disclose information- such as people’s right to know, the transparency of the operation of state affairs - and the need to keep secret - such as the privacy protection and the fair performance of duties. When balancing, “Any information kept and managed by public institutions shall be disclosed to the public in an active manner pursuant to this Act to ensure people’s right to know”(Article 3 of the Official Information Disclosure Act) must be considered. Article 9 (1) states that: “All information kept and managed by public institutions shall be subject to disclosure to the public”, but some information from Article 9 (1) 1-8 can be non-disclosure. However, Article 9 uses the vague expressions like: “Information which is deemed likely to seriously undermine national interests”, “Information which is likely to seriously obstruct the protection of people’s lives, physical safety and properties”, “Information which has considerable grounds for remarkably obstructing the fair performance of duties or research and development”, so there are difficulties in interpreting and applying those clauses. Due to this, there were many cancellations of High Court’s judgements regarding the Official Information Disclosure Act by the Supreme Court.