한국 환경행정소송의 최근 동향과 쟁점, 향후 과제

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

With regards to dispute resolutions of environmental litigations, in general, there are two main prongs, private and public procedures, and the latter will be reviewed and discussed in this paper in terms of environmental administrative litigation. The “environment” case, which is the subject of environmental administrative litigation, if taken as a problem in terms of individual administrative law related to environment and not as a narrow meaning, it is also what this paper takes as an analyzable subject.
Likewise, most of the Constitutional Court decisions are analyzable subjects as well. This is because the Constitutional Court will review adjudications on the constitutionality of the disputed statutes or constitutional petitions separately, from administrative litigations brought against the government action based on the related environmental regulations or statutes.
The significant precedents of the environmental administrative litigations in recent years are categorized by issues and facts under discussion in this paper. By reviewing the precedents related to the polluter pays principle, especially in the case of environmental improvement charges, it is necessary to take into account a more fundamental measure where one does not have to do a restricted action, rather than allowing banned actions in exception and eliminating financial burden.
Besides, the litigation requirement section in this paper reviews the precedents involved standing to sue and administrative disposition. It seems that courts take a consistent attitude by reconfirming the standing requirements without significant change. Therefore, it is about time to mitigate the requirements in public level at least to the extent of standing to sue in environmental administrative litigation when it comes to subjective interest or self-relevance.
Meanwhile, the precedent related to suspension of execution, as one of provisional remedies, if allowed monetary relief, does not recognize suspension of execution. Thus, without self-relevance elements, it blocks the relief of right which leaves much to be desired. In relations to authorization and permission, even if there is no explicit ground for rejection, it is clear that the rejection should be justified by public interest in the precedent.
Furthermore, in relations to prior environmental review of preventive principle and environmental impact assessment, the precedent has hospitality about the violation of procedure and poor evaluation, and this dilutes the main object of environmental impact assessment derived from social agreement that weighs more values on prevention than ex post facto relief.
Finally, regarding the definition of waste under Wastes Control Act, the precedent takes unified and consistent attitude and shows a decisive manner toward the environment protection in dealing with abandoned waste. Recently, the lower courts show remarkable breakthrough on the acknowledgement of environmental right and standing for environmental interest, while the Supreme Court of Korea remains calm and slow over them. In general, it seems that environmental acts and administration in Korea has begun to show a tendency toward conservatism due to the current government policy and the worsened economic situation.
In short, it is not desirable for the government to adopt extreme environmental priority, but at least, it is required to perform the environmental administrations within the framework of sustainable development through which environmental act is developed.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• I. 들어가는 말
• II. 환경법 일반
• III. 환경행정소송의 적법요건
• IV. 환경보호를 위한 행정작용
• V. 향후 환경행정소송의 전망과 과제
• 참고문헌
• Abstract

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 박균성, "환경법" 박영사 2010

2 김성수, "행정법 I - 행정법이론의 헌법적 원리" 법문사 1998

3 박상희, "해양환경관리법상의 해양환경개선부담금" 한국해사법학회 21 (21): 83-108, 2009

4 김홍균, "사전환경성검토제도와 환경영향평가제도의 통합" 한국법학원 (105) : 250-276, 2008

5 함태성, "사전환경성검토제도에 관한 공법적 검토" 한국환경법학회 28 (28): 409-435, 2006

6 이기춘, "건설폐기물과 토지소유자의 처리책임에 관한 소고" 한국환경법학회 31 (31): 149-185, 2009

7 김중권, "環境影響評價가 缺如된 行政行爲의 效力에 관한 小考 -對象判決：대법원 2006. 6. 30. 선고 2005두14363판결" 한국법학원 (114) : 363-383, 2009

8 조홍식, "廢棄物管理法上 事業場廢棄物 排出事業者의 法的 責任" 한국환경법학회 26 (26): 253-308, 2004

9 이준서, "‘낙동강 취수장 판결’로 살펴본 환경행정소송상의 원고적격 확대의 문제" 한양법학회 (31) : 61-82, 2010

10 박해식, "ʻ회복하기 어려운 손해의 의미와 본안의 승소가능성ʼ" 법원도서관 (50) : 2004

11 박균성, "ʻ환경영향평가의 하자와 사업계획승인처분의 효력ʼ" 박영사 7 : 2002

12 정훈, "ʻ폐기물처리에 관한 법적 고찰ʼ" 전남대학교 2001

13 허상수, "ʻ교육환경 침해로 인한 유지청구ʼ" 부산판례연구회 7 : 1997

14 홍준형, "ʻ공공정책에 대한 사법적 결정의 법이론적 한계(Ⅱ) : 대법원의 새만금사건 판결을 중심으로ʼ" 법제처 (581) : 2006

15 정훈, "4대강 정비사업에 따른 법적 쟁점" 법학연구소 30 (30): 305-334, 2010