行政訴訟上 臨時救濟에 관한 硏究 : 行政訴訟法 改正案을 中心으로 = (A) study on interim relief in administrative litigation : focused on the amendment draft of administrative litigation act

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

For administrative action, it admits authentication and self-executive force that is different from civil expression of will in order to smooth conduct of administrative purpose so that there are many cases that enforcement may complete if it waits until merits judgement
Therefore, in order to obtain the effectiveness of the merits judgment, the necessity of temporary relief is higher than the case of civil proceeding. The necessity of temporary relief is increased when disadvantage of holder's administrative disposition becomes serious or the application of administrative action is irreversible
The problem of temporary relief about infringement administration is whether it can deter making the fact that can not be restituted before the original lawsuit is completed or temporarily benefits can admit given status about the area of benefits administration.
That is, suspension of execution among temporary relief performs prevention of being fulfilled due to illegal administrative acts, and provisional disposition plays an effective role in benefits administration.
This paper compares and reviews the function of prevention of being fulfilled due to illegal administration acts through temporary relief, especially suspension of execution, and after that, it will review the plan how unrecoverable damages will recover through the final judgment, especially revocation judgment.
It is questionable that Korea's temporary relief performs well about removing unrecoverable damages completely for revocation judgment.
Because the basic attitude of Korea's legislative and judiciary is characterized that executive's minimal intervention through judiciary in the name of separation of powers, and as a result, people does not receive sufficient right remedies through judiciary.
As a result, there are some defects cases occurs even if the remedy is quarantined at the original lawsuit.
Looking for the status of a temporary relief defects in detail,
About the bearing administrative disposition, though the regulation of current Article 23 of Administrative Litigation Law's suspension of execution is set, temporary relief can't saved when unrecoverable damages are occurred before suspension of execution decision after administrative disposition.
In addition, about the refusal disposition and omissions of beneficiary administrative disposition, temporary relief system is not prepared yet, and
orthodoxy or judicial case have an opinion that administrative office has the right of beneficiary administrative disposition so that it is skeptical for admitting temporary relief about disposal or omission under current law.
After all, for the formation of appropriate temporary relief system, especially for a complete recovery of the unrecoverable damages that are from revocation judgment about illegal administrative disposition or bearing administrative disposition,
First, the case that can't be a original lawsuit, it is impossible to be a temporary relief in principle, so it is need to expand a original lawsuit for the sake of expanding temporary relief.
Second, the damages that can't recover from temporary relief and revocation judgment, it has to be recovered through monetary compensation, and it should be same process as temporary relief and revocation judgment in terms of efficient of recovered damages and one-time dispute resolution.
For the complete removal of illegal fact of the state that is occurred by making administrative disposition except effect of retroactively exclusion, the possibility is uncertain that temporary relief has to play an active role by applying it that temporary relief is stopping or at least preventing the fact of the state on the front.
Specifically
1. For the sake of complete protection of right, there are ways to defer the self-executive administrative disposition's imperative bearing effect occurrence time and ordered administrative disposition's enforcement commencement time.
Shortly after administrative disposition, without giving other party enough opportunity for protection of right, in case of imminent execution or forcedly execution even though other party suits administrative dispute, only if administrative disposition's imminent execution does unrecoverable damages to other party due to the execution that is not needed for public interest, suspension of execution decision, the same meaning of provisional decision can be made with discretion abuse by administration office's execution.
2. With remaining damages claims by a new substantive enactment, about judgment of the merits' judicial decision, it would be able to judge the payment of liquidated damages as well as revocation.
As a special form of litigation merge follow-up action in case of quoting decision about suspension of execution application, within the litigation on the merits of a case, the introduction of enforcement are necessary for administrative office's execution of profits return claims for private person.
And, to make sure the recovery of post-damage of public interest, deposit or collateral provision are required.
3. Above discussion are generally applied priority for illegal administrative disposition or bearing administrative disposition,
About benefits administration or beneficial disposal , through existing revision and revised proposal in 2013 by the Ministry of Justice's created provisional disposition for the complement of right remedy's defect.
There is a consensus about adopting proposal, expecially a lawsuit against third parties administrative disposal to create collateral provision regulation for the sake of protecting third party so that it is evaluated meaningful.
Nevertheless, now that establishing enactment, if we can more precise legislative system, it is considered that the revised Administrative Procedure Act proposal can contribute expansion of people's right remedy,
Regarding evocation litigation, it only regulates suspension of execution, if suspension of execution condition is acknowledged, in addition to it, tentative performance of obligation is ordered, and separate regulation of provisional disposition about performance of obligation lawsuit shall conform to the system of lawsuit appeal.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 제1장 서론 1
• 제1절 연구의 목적 1
• 제2절 연구의 범위와 방법 4
• 제2장 행정소송상 임시구제 제도 일반론 6
• 제1절 임시구제의 의의 및 인정근거 6
• Ⅰ. 임시구제제도의 개념과 필요성 6
• Ⅱ. 임시구제의 법적 성질 8
• 1. 잠정성 9
• 2. 긴급성 9
• 3. 부수성 10
• 4. 밀행성 10
• 5. 자유재량성 11
• Ⅲ. 행정소송상 임시구제의 인정근거 12
• 1. 행정재판권의 관할권에 대한 헌법의 근거조항 12
• 2. 헌법 제10조의 기본권 유보조항 14
• 3. 헌법 제27조의 재판청구권조항 15
• 제2절 현행 행정소송법상 임시구제제도의 내용 16
• Ⅰ. 집행정지제도 16
• 1. 의의 16
• 2. 요건 17
• 3. 효력 32
• Ⅱ. 가처분제도 37
• 1. 가처분의 인정문제 37
• 2. 소송목적상의 차이 40
• 3. 행정소송법 제8조 제2항의 준용규정 45
• 4. 민사집행법상 가처분제도 47
• 제3장 임시구제 제도의 비교법적 검토 53
• 제1절 독일 53
• Ⅰ. 행정소송체계와 유형 53
• 1. 행정소송체계 53
• 2. 행정소송유형 53
• Ⅱ. 집행정지제도 55
• 1. 집행정지제도의 개관 55
• 2. 요건 58
• 3. 효력 61
• Ⅲ. 가명령제도 65
• 1. 요건 66
• 2. 효력 67
• 제2절 프랑스 70
• Ⅰ. 행정소송체계와 유형 70
• 1. 행정소송체계 70
• 2. 행정소송유형 70
• Ⅱ. 집행정지가처분 76
• 1. 제도의 개관 76
• 2. 적법성 요건 78
• 3. 실체적 요건 81
• 4. 효력 84
• Ⅲ. 자유보호가처분 84
• 1. 제도의 개관 84
• 2. 요건 85
• 3. 효력 91
• 제3절 미국 93
• Ⅰ. 사법심사체계와 유형 93
• 1. 사법심사체계 93
• 2. 사법심사절차상 구제유형 95
• Ⅱ. 연방행정절차법상의 임시구제 97
• Ⅲ. 행정소송상의 금지명령 99
• 1. 제도의 개관 99
• 2. 요건 105
• 3. 효력 112
• 제4절 일본 119
• Ⅰ. 행정소송체계와 유형 119
• 1. 행정소송체계 119
• 2. 행정소송유형 120
• Ⅱ. 집행정지제도 123
• 1. 제도의 개관 123
• 2. 요건 125
• 3. 효력 129
• Ⅳ. 가(假)의무이행제도 및 가(假)금지제도 131
• 1. 개관 131
• 2. 요건 131
• 3. 효력 135
• 4. 다른 제도와의 관계 137
• 제5절 비교대상별 검토 및 시사점 138
• Ⅰ. 집행부정지의 원칙 138
• 1. 임시구제절차의 유럽화 138
• 2. 집행정지원칙에 대한 재검토 141
• Ⅱ. 집행정지 143
• 1. 일본의 경우 143
• 2. 프랑스의 경우 145
• Ⅲ. 가처분 149
• 1. 가의무이행제도 149
• 2. 가금지제도 150
• 3. 가명령 151
• 제4장 임시구제제도의 개선방안 154
• 제1절 집행정지제도에 있어서의 개선방안 154
• Ⅰ. 집행부정지원칙의 유지 154
• Ⅱ. 집행정지 요건 완화 157
• 1. 개정경위 및 개정안의 내용 157
• 2. 중대한 손해의 의의 및 회복하기 어려운 손해와의 관계 158
• 3. 개정안의 문제점 및 검토 160
• Ⅲ. 담보부 집행정지제도의 도입 161
• 1. 개정경위 및 개정안의 내용 161
• 2. 개정안의 문제점 및 검토 163
• Ⅳ. 시간적 효력의 명문화 165
• 1. 문제점 165
• 2. 검토 166
• Ⅴ. 부당이득반환청구소송의 요건 완화 169
• 제2절 가처분제도에 있어서의 개선방안 171
• Ⅰ. 가처분제도의 도입 171
• 1. 행정소송법 개정안의 제안이유 171
• 2. 의의 172
• 3. 요건 173
• 4. 효력 177
• Ⅱ. 집행정지와 가처분의 관계 재구성 178
• 1. 취소소송에서의 가처분 178
• 2. 의무이행소송에서의 가처분 182
• 3. 예방적 금지소송에서 가처분 184
• Ⅲ. 부작위에 의한 의무이행소송 제소기간과 가처분 186
• Ⅳ. 사실적 요인에 의한 가처분의 본안 선취 금지 188
• Ⅴ. 임시적 제한명령의 도입 190
• 제5장 결론 192
• 참 고 문 헌 199