行政立法 效力의 再構成 - 試論

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The Supreme Court has continuously denied legally binding effect of civil penalty schedules which are parts of the Minister's Decree and which are enacted by the Minister under the delegation of the statute, while it has recognized legally binding effect of civil penalty schedules which are parts of the Presidential Decree under the same condition. These case law of the Supreme Court has been criticized by administrative law academics to be illogical and unconstitutional. Because the Constitution empowers both of the President and the Ministers to enact administrative decrees under the specific statutory delegation of the Congress, there is no legal and logical reason to treat therm differently.
According to the first decision(Supreme Court Decision en bane, 2003 Du 1684 pronounced on 22. 6. 2006) which reveals clear reasoning behind the case law, the schedule in the Minister's Decree had adopted so mechanically-applicable rules that there is no discretion on the courts to give remedy in case where the application of the rule yields unjust results. So the main motivation of the Court to deny legally binding effect to Minister's Decree can be said to ensure room for judicial discretion to deviate from the administrative legislation.
The one concurrent opinion of the above decision implied the possible change of the case law about the Minister's Decree. But if such a change implies that the Minister's Decree has a strict binding effect and the Court loses judicial discretion to make a decision different from the administrative legislation, it might have bad effect to restrict judicial discretion improperly.
We expect legal norm to have flexibility for individual justice as well as general equality and foreseeability at the same time. And the legal effect of law consists of the various levels and types: on one hand, constitutional validity, enforceability, legitimacy and the other hand, rule, rule with excuse, factors, guideline, standard, principles, analogy etc. And the legal effect can also be different depending on the recipients of the norm. Therefore, the legal effect can be more properly reconstructed, not in the form of binding or non-binding rule, but in the form of more various and flexible forms. It enables the court to approach to administrative legislation in a more practical way.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 이 글의 목적과 방법
• Ⅱ. 행정입법에 기대되는 기능과 효력
• Ⅲ. 법규범의 효력의 다양성
• Ⅳ. 판례로 본 행정입법의 효력 - 제재처분기준을 정한 부령의 효력에 관한 판례를 중심으로
• Ⅴ. 결어
• 참고문헌
• 〈Abstract〉

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 최정일, "행정법의 정석 (행정법 I)" 박영사 2009

2 홍정선, "행정법원론 (상)" 박영사 2009

3 김해룡, "행정법규범체계연구 Ⅰ: 법규명령과 행정규칙" 한국공법학회 35 (35): 205-235, 2007

4 김철용, "행정법 I" 박영사 2008

5 김동희, "행정법 I" 박영사 2009

6 김남진, "행정법 I" 법문사 2009

7 최정일, "행정규칙의 법규성 문제를 또 생각하며" (486) : 1998

8 홍정선, "제재적 행정처분의 기준 - 법규명령인가, 행정규칙인가 -" (491) : 1998

9 김철용, "이른바 법규명령형식의 행정규칙·행정규칙형식의 법규명령론" (495) : 1999

10 선정원, "시행규칙의 법적 성질과 부수적 통제의 실효성강화"

11 김영환, "법철학의 근본문제" 홍문사 2008

12 심헌섭, "법철학 I - 법·도덕·힘 -" 법문사 1982

13 Hans Kelsen, "법의 효력과 실효성" 44 (44): 2003

14 변종필, "법의 효력과 근본규범" 안암법학

15 황도수, "법규명령으로서의 부령― 법규명령과 행정규칙의 구별기준 ―" 행정법이론실무학회(行政法理論實務學會) 18 : 627-647, 2007

16 박균성, "법규명령에 대한 행정소송의 제문제" 한국사법행정학회 2008

17 김원주, "법규명령과 행정규칙 구별의 실익" 1998

18 김동희, "법규명령과 행정규칙" (493) : 1999

19 홍준형, "법규명령과 시행규칙의 구별: 제재적 행정처분의 기준을 정한 시행규칙·시행령의 법적 성질을 중심으로" (488) : 1998

20 이희준, "독일법상 법규명령과 행정규칙의 구별기준으로서 ‘법규’ 개념에 관한 연구" 서울대학교 2008

21 최정일, "대통령령으로 정한 재량준칙(제재적 처분의 기준)의 법적 성질 및 효력 - 대판 2001. 3. 9, 99두5207을 중심으로 -" 2001

22 Cass R. Sunstein, "Problems with Rules’" 1995