RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색
자동완성 버튼

인기 검색어

    다국어 입력
    あ ぁ か が さ ざ た だ な は ば ぱ ま や ゃ ら わ ゎ ん い ぃ き ぎ し じ ち ぢ に ひ び ぴ み り う ぅ く ぐ す ず つ づ っ ぬ ふ ぶ ぷ む ゆ ゅ る え ぇ け げ せ ぜ て で ね へ べ ぺ め れ お ぉ こ ご そ ぞ と ど の ほ ぼ ぽ も よ ょ ろ を
    ア ァ カ サ ザ タ ダ ナ ハ バ パ マ ヤ ャ ラ ワ ヮ ン イ ィ キ ギ シ ジ チ ヂ ニ ヒ ビ ピ ミ リ ウ ゥ ク グ ス ズ ツ ヅ ッ ヌ フ ブ プ ム ユ ュ ル エ ェ ケ ゲ セ ゼ テ デ ヘ ベ ペ メ レ オ ォ コ ゴ ソ ゾ ト ド ノ ホ ボ ポ モ ヨ ョ ロ ヲ ―

    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.
    ㅥ ㅦ ㅧ ㅨ ㅩ ㅪ ㅫ ㅬ ㅭ ㅮ ㅯ ㅰ ㅱ ㅲ ㅳ ㅴ ㅵ ㅶ ㅷ ㅸ ㅹ ㅺ ㅻ ㅼ ㅽ ㅾ ㅿ ㆀ ㆁ ㆂ ㆃ ㆄ ㆅ ㆆ ㆇ ㆈ ㆉ ㆊ ㆋ ㆌ ㆍ ㆎ
    Α Β Γ Δ Ε Ζ Η Θ Ι Κ Λ Μ Ν Ξ Ο Π Ρ Σ Τ Υ Φ Χ Ψ Ω α β γ δ ε ζ η θ ι κ λ μ ν ξ ο π ρ σ τ υ φ χ ψ ω
    á à Á À é è É È ç Ç ê
    Ä Ö Ü ä ö ü ß
    ְ ֳ ֲ ֱ ָ ַ ֵ ֶ ִ ֹ ּ ֻ ׂ ׁ ּ פ ם ן ו ט א ר ק ף ך ל ח י ע כ ג ד ש ץ ת צ מ נ ה ב
    ‘ ’ “ ” 〔 〕 〈 〉 「 」 『 』 【 】 ＂ （ ） ［ ］ ｛ ｝
    ± × ÷ ≠ ≤ ≥ ∞ ∴ ♂ ♀ ∠ ⊥ ⌒ ∂ ∇ ≡ ≒ ≪ ≫ √ ∽ ∝ ∵ ∫ ∬ ∈ ∋ ⊆ ⊇ ⊂ ⊃ ∪ ∩ ∧ ∨ ￢ ⇒ ⇔ ∀ ∃ ∮ ∑ ∏ ＋ － ＜ ＝ ＞
    、 。 · ‥ … ¨ 〃 ― ∥ ＼ ∼ ´ ～ ˇ ˘ ˝ ˚ ˙ ¸ ˛ ¡ ¿ ː ！ ＇ ， ． ／ ： ； ？ ＾ ＿ ｀ ｜
    ½ ⅓ ⅔ ¼ ¾ ⅛ ⅜ ⅝ ⅞ ¹ ² ³ ⁴ ⁿ ₁ ₂ ₃ ₄
    Æ Ð Ħ IJ Ł Ø Œ Þ Ŧ Ŋ æ đ ð ħ ı ij ĸ ŀ ł ø œ ß þ ŧ ŋ ʼn
    А Б В Г Д Е Ё Ж З И Й К Л М Н О П Р С Т У Ф Х Ц Ч Ш Щ Ъ Ы Ь Э Ю Я а б в г д е ё ж з и й к л м н о п р с т у ф х ц ч ш щ ъ ы ь э ю я
    ′ ″ ℃ Å ￠ ￡ ￥ ¤ ℉ ‰ ＄ ％ Ｆ ￦ ㎕ ㎖ ㎗ ℓ ㎘ ㏄ ㎣ ㎤ ㎥ ㎦ ㎙ ㎚ ㎛ ㎜ ㎝ ㎞ ㎟ ㎠ ㎡ ㎢ ㏊ ㎍ ㎎ ㎏ ㏏ ㎈ ㎉ ㏈ ㎧ ㎨ ㎰ ㎱ ㎲ ㎳ ㎴ ㎵ ㎶ ㎷ ㎸ ㎹ ㎀ ㎁ ㎂ ㎃ ㎄ ㎺ ㎻ ㎽ ㎾ ㎿ ㎐ ㎑ ㎒ ㎓ ㎔ Ω ㏀ ㏁ ㎊ ㎋ ㎌ ㏖ ㏅ ㎭ ㎮ ㎯ ㏛ ㎩ ㎪ ㎫ ㎬ ㏝ ㏐ ㏓ ㏃ ㏉ ㏜ ㏆
    § ※ ☆ ★ ○ ● ◎ ◇ ◆ □ ■ △ ▽ → ← ↑ ↓ ↔ 〓 ◁ ◀ ▷ ▶ ♤ ♠ ♡ ♥ ♧ ♣ ⊙ ◈ ▣ ◐ ◑ ▒ ▤ ▥ ▨ ▧ ▦ ▩ ♨ ☏ ☎ ☜ ☞ † ‡ ↕ ↗ ↙ ↖ ↘ ♭ ♩ ♪ ♬ ㉿ ㈜ № ㏇ ™ ㏂ ㏘ ℡ ＃ ＆ ＊ ＠ ª º
    ⅰ ⅱ ⅲ ⅳ ⅴ ⅵ ⅶ ⅷ ⅸ ⅹ Ⅰ Ⅱ Ⅲ Ⅳ Ⅴ Ⅵ Ⅶ Ⅷ Ⅸ Ⅹ
    ا ب ت ث ج ح خ د ذ ر ز س ش ص ض ط ظ ع غ ف ق ک ل م ن ه و ی
    닫기
    KCI등재

    일본 개정 행정소송법

    한글로보기

    https://www.riss.kr/link?id=A76370181

    • 0

      상세조회

    • 0

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

    부가정보

    다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract) kakao i 다국어 번역

    영어
    한국어
    A lot of debates, requests and critics on Japanese Administrative Cases Litigation Act(JACLA) brought its revision, 2004. It took almost 40 years. Too narrow reviewability and standing had blocked the citizens from seeking judicial review of agency action.
    In the process of judicial reform in Japan, the revision of JACLA was regarded as the first and foremost task. Four important purposes of this revision are enlargement of scope of review, accelaration of efficiency of review, making it easy to use and improvement of provisional relief.
    Among the suggested revision items some were very successful, others not. Outstanding development is the introduction of new forms of review. When an agency ignored or rejected citizen's application for ageny action, she could bring suit seeking reversal of agency's decision. This type of judicial review could not bring direct resolution of administrative dispute even though a plaintiff was successful. Writ of mandamus, which was introduced this time, is the only useful way of relief in this kind of cases. Also prohibition suit is provided for blocking future agency action.
    Korean Administrative Procedure Act(KAPA) has had much influence from that of Japan. But it can be said that a new era has opened for KAPA through the revision of JACLA. New two statutes have more difference than likeness. The KAPA is under revision process, too. The Japanese act can be a reference, but not a role model any more.
    It is time to seriously ask what you can give people through Administrative Procedure. Setting the boundaries between government agency and court cannot be the primary raison d'etre of KAPA. On the contrary, relief of rights and legal interests of citizens should be the main purpose of administrative litigation Procedure. In this view Japan was successful in rebuilding the law. But bigger tasks are awaiting for courts and lawyers to construct it.
    번역하기

    A lot of debates, requests and critics on Japanese Administrative Cases Litigation Act(JACLA) brought its revision, 2004. It took almost 40 years. Too narrow reviewability and standing had blocked the citizens from seeking judicial review of agency ac...

    A lot of debates, requests and critics on Japanese Administrative Cases Litigation Act(JACLA) brought its revision, 2004. It took almost 40 years. Too narrow reviewability and standing had blocked the citizens from seeking judicial review of agency action.
    In the process of judicial reform in Japan, the revision of JACLA was regarded as the first and foremost task. Four important purposes of this revision are enlargement of scope of review, accelaration of efficiency of review, making it easy to use and improvement of provisional relief.
    Among the suggested revision items some were very successful, others not. Outstanding development is the introduction of new forms of review. When an agency ignored or rejected citizen's application for ageny action, she could bring suit seeking reversal of agency's decision. This type of judicial review could not bring direct resolution of administrative dispute even though a plaintiff was successful. Writ of mandamus, which was introduced this time, is the only useful way of relief in this kind of cases. Also prohibition suit is provided for blocking future agency action.
    Korean Administrative Procedure Act(KAPA) has had much influence from that of Japan. But it can be said that a new era has opened for KAPA through the revision of JACLA. New two statutes have more difference than likeness. The KAPA is under revision process, too. The Japanese act can be a reference, but not a role model any more.
    It is time to seriously ask what you can give people through Administrative Procedure. Setting the boundaries between government agency and court cannot be the primary raison d'etre of KAPA. On the contrary, relief of rights and legal interests of citizens should be the main purpose of administrative litigation Procedure. In this view Japan was successful in rebuilding the law. But bigger tasks are awaiting for courts and lawyers to construct it.

    더보기

    목차 (Table of Contents)

    • Ⅰ. 서론
    • Ⅱ. 2004년 법의 의의
    • Ⅲ. 2004년 법의 주요 개정내용
    • Ⅳ. 2004년 법의 기타 개정내용
    • Ⅴ. 미루어진 과제
    • Ⅰ. 서론
    • Ⅱ. 2004년 법의 의의
    • Ⅲ. 2004년 법의 주요 개정내용
    • Ⅳ. 2004년 법의 기타 개정내용
    • Ⅴ. 미루어진 과제
    • Ⅵ. 평가 및 결론
    • 〈Abstract〉
    더보기

    동일학술지(권/호) 다른 논문

    동일학술지 더보기

    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

    인용정보 인용지수 설명보기

    학술지 이력

    학술지 이력
    연월일 이력구분 이력상세 등재구분
    2026 평가 재인증평가 신청대상 (재인증)
    2020-11-20 학회명변경 한글명 : 행정법이론실무학회(行政法理論實務學會) -> 행정법이론실무학회
    영문명 : Korea Administrative Law And Practice Association(약칭 Kalpa) -> Korea Administrative Law And Practice Association(약칭 KALPA)    		 KCI등재
    2020-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (재인증) KCI등재
    2017-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (계속평가) KCI등재
    2013-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
    2010-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
    2008-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
    2005-05-30 학술지명변경 한글명 : 행정법연구(行政法硏究) -> 행정법연구 KCI등재
    2005-01-01 등재 등재학술지 선정 (등재후보2차) KCI등재
    2004-01-01 등재 등재후보 1차 PASS (등재후보1차) KCI등재후보
    2003-01-01 등재 등재후보학술지 선정 (신규평가) KCI등재후보
    더보기

    학술지 인용정보

    학술지 인용정보
    기준연도 WOS-KCI 통합IF(2년) KCIF(2년) KCIF(3년)
    2016 1.61 1.61 1.39
    KCIF(4년) KCIF(5년) 중심성지수(3년) 즉시성지수
    1.31 1.37 1.384 0.57
    더보기

    이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

    나만을 위한 추천자료

    해외이동버튼