법치행정의 확립을 위한 행정법의 과제 : 처분사유의 추가?변경에 관한 판례의 평가와 보완점 = Addition or alteration of grounds for an administrative act -case analysis and suggestions

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

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.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 최송화, "행정처분의 이유부기의무, in: 법치행정과 공익" 박영사 2002

2 류지태, "행정소송에서의 행정행위 근거변경에 관한 대법원 판례분석" 한국사법행정학회 34 (34): 1993

3 김문수, "행정소송법에 있어서 처분이유의 추가와 변경" 특별소송실무연구회 3 : 1989

4 허상수, "항고소송의 심리" 법원도서관 67 : 1995

5 박만호, "항고소송의 소송물과 심판의 범위" 법원도서관 8 : 1977

6 김태우, "취소소송에서의 처분사유의 추가ㆍ변경" 특별소송실무연구회 5 : 1997

7 변동걸, "취소소송에 있어서 처분사유의 추가 및 변경" 법원도서관 (7) : 1987

8 하명호, "청문의 대상과 절차, in: 행정소송(Ⅱ)" 한국사법행정학회 2008

9 하명호, "처분에 있어서 절차적 하자의 효과와 치유, in: 행정소송(Ⅱ)" 한국사법행정학회 2008

10 박정훈, "처분사유의 추가․변경과 행정행위의 전환 -제재철회와 공익상 철회-, in: 행정판례연구 VII" 박영사 2002

11 정하중, "이유제시하자의 치유와 처분사유의 추가,변경 -독일법과의 비교연구-" 대한변호사협회 (364) : 132-156, 2006

12 박윤흔, "이유부기의 하자와 행정행위의 효력" 40 (40): 1995

13 서태환, "실질적 청문절차의 하자와 행정처분의 효력, in: 행정재판실무편람(Ⅱ)" 서울행정법원 2002

14 배종대, "신형사소송법 제2판" 홍문사 2009

15 박해식, "비공개대상정보간의 처분사유의 추가" 법원도서관 (47) : 2004

16 전원열, "법원이 공소장 변경 없이 공소사실과 다른 사실을 인정하거나 적용법조를 달리하는 경우, 그것이 피고인의 방어권 행사에 실질적인 불이익을 초래하는지 여부의 판단 기준" 법원도서관 (74) : 2008

17 석호철, "기속력의 범위로서 처분사유의 동일, in: 행정판례연구Ⅴ" 서울대학교출판부 2000

18 室井 力, "行政手續法ㆍ行政不服審査法 第2版" 日本評論社 2008

19 池田直樹, "處分理由の差替え(2)-情報公開, in: 行政判例百選Ⅱ 第5版" 有婓閣 2006

20 藤谷武史, "處分理由の差替え(1)-課稅處分, in: 行政判例百選Ⅱ 第5版" 有婓閣 2006

21 交告尙史, "處分理由と取消訴訟" 勁草書房 2000

22 류지태, "‘행정절차로서의 이유부기의무’, 법과 인간의 존엄 : 청암 정경식 박사 화갑기념논문집" 박영사 1997

23 "Obermayer, Kommentar zum Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz, 3.Auflage, Luchterhand"