國家聽慣法의 課題

金春煥(Kim, Choon-hwan) 조선대학교 법학연구원 1999 法學論叢 Vol.5 No.-

美國의 競業者訴訟에 있어서의 原告適格

김춘환(Kim Choon-Hwan) 한국토지공법학회 2004 土地公法硏究 Vol.21 No.-

Who can bring a lawsuit at the court of administrative litigation? The plaintiffs including the third parties generally bring a lawsuit if they get infringed on their rights and interests. The scope of standing is recognized with basis on the legal right in Korea but legally protected interests in common law in America. So American law is much more wider than Korean law in the scope of standing. The law of standing has developed through the case law in anglo-american law. This paper introduces the law of standing in American to Korean and criticizes the problems of the law. To study this paper, first of all, standing of the competitors litigation is examined and the reason why American courts has expanded their sanding after then, Lastly the figures and problems of the law of standing of American is examined.

행정입법에 대한 국회의 사전적 통제기준

김춘환(Choon Hwan Kim) 유럽헌법학회 2009 유럽헌법연구 Vol.5 No.-

There are subject matters traditionally governed through delegation of legislative power; a long history of regulation outside the legislature supports a broad reading of a delegation of power. Power to govern certain professions is traditionally delegated to an administrative agency. Such delegation of legislative power needs the controls from arbitrary and capricious rule-making. There are four broad mechanisms for the control of it: consultation, publication, legislative scrutiny and judicial review. The nature if the judicial process us nonetheless unsuited to any generalized control over the content of rules. For the checks in the form of consultation, legislative supervision and publication must remain the chief weapons. Legislative review of administrative regulations and decisions might favor a broad delegation of power. If the legislating body knows that the power it delegates cannot be exercised without being exposed to legislative disapproval, there is less reason to fear the initial delegation. The legislating body may state a general policy, assign the development of specific details to administrative consultants, and then review the product to assure that it comports with the original policy, and does not create more problems than it solves. All developed countries have variety methods to direct control over the delegated legislature, for example laying process, affirmative resolution, and negative resolution. Such prior and direct of congressional control systems above countries should be introduced into Korean laws for congressional efficiency review of regulations. This paper is consisting of four chapters; introduction, control types of delegated legislation, prior standards of congressional review of regulations, and conclusion.

미국의 공교육 프로그램에 있어서의 법적문제

김춘환(Kim, Choon-Hwan) 조선대학교 법학연구원 2008 法學論叢 Vol.15 No.2

The instructional program of America introduces to that of Korea, As a general rule school officials have the authority to prescribe the method of teaching, decide on what curriculum shall be offered, and what books shall be used in the school. Such authority is vested in public schools either expressly or implicitly by state law, However, this authority is not absolute ani may be curtailed or modified by the courts if school officials proceed beyond the bounds of their power or act arbitrarily in violation of the constitutional rights of students or teachers, The courts, however, will not intervene in resolution of conflicts which arise from the daily operation of the schools and which do not directly involve basic constitutional values, In this paper, curriculum (reasonable rules, constitutionality, intellectual marketplace, evolution and creation science, liberty to teach and learn, English language instruction, dirty words, removal of material from curriculum), censorship of library books, lack of scholarship, promotion, diploma, homework, sex education are discussed as a legal issues, Those issues have been judged as a constitutionality or unconstitutionality by states courts ani the Federal Suprema Court of America, I consider how much the instructional program of America will affect that of Korea, I am sure that the purpose of instructional program of America depends greatly on the constitutional value and ideology, It is very thought-provoking to Korea, In addition this paper is translated and arranged the Law of Schools, Students, ani Teachers in a Nutshell into Korean, This book was written by Kern Alexander ani M, David Alexander in 1984 and published by St, Paul., Minn: West Publishing Co,

현행 행정소송법의 문제점

김춘환(Choon Hwan Kim) 조선대학교 동북아연구소 2001 동북아연구 Vol.14 No.-

N/A

行政行爲의 鍵令을 구하는 訴訟制度

金春煥(Kim Choon Hwan) 조선대학교 법학연구원 1995 法學論叢 Vol.1 No.-

한미 FTA의 간접수용과 한국의 손실보상의 과제

김춘환(Kim Choon-Hwan) 조선대학교 법학연구원 2012 法學論叢 Vol.19 No.1

한국과 미국의 자유무역협정이 발효됨에 따라 우리나라의 법제도뿐만 아니라 공공정책에 중대한 변화가 예상되고 있어 그에 대한 대비가 필요하다. 한미 FTA에서 도입된 간접수용과 투자자-국가소송제도는 우리 보상법체계에서 채택되어 있지 않는 제도이기 때문에 우리나라의 사회적ㆍ법적ㆍ정치적 여건을 반영하여 도입ㆍ시행되고 있는 각종 정책과 제도들이 한미 FTA의 관련규정에 위반되어 효력을 상실하게 될 우려가 있다. 한미 FTA는 안전한 투자환경 조성을 위한 외국투자자 보호목적에 따라 국제법을 바탕으로 투자자의 권리보호를 위한 기본요건들을 규정하고 있지만 우리나라는 개인의 재산권보다는 공공의 필요 또는 복리가 더 중요시되고, 헌법에서 보장하고 있는 재산권보장과 보상에 대한 요구가 입법에 제대로 반영되어 있지 않다. 예컨대 미국의 규제적 수용과 국제법상 간접수용은 완전하고 신속한 보상을 요구하지만 우리나라의 손실보상제도는 해당 법규의 입법적 보완을 통해 보상을 허용하고 있어, 우리나라 보상체계 전반이 FTA의 Chapter 11과 상충될 위험에 있다. 또한 투자자 국가소송제도는 우리나라의 소송절차에서 인정되지 않는 또 다른 소송방법을 의미하는 것이고 미국 투자자는 국내법 체계와 소송절차가 아닌 국제법과 FTA 조항에 따른 소송절차를 적용받게 되므로 우리 입법권과 행정권은 물론 사법권까지 침해할 수 있다. 그럼에도 불구하고 우리나라의 수용과 보상에 관한 정책과 법제도들이 한미 FTA의 간접수용조항과 투자자-국가소송제도에 의해 미국법과 국제법에 따라 판단되도록 강요받게 될 가능성이 있으므로 그에 대한 시급한 대책마련이 필요하다. 이 연구는 한미 FTA상의 수용과 보상(Chapter 11의 Article 11.6) 조항을 우리나라 헌법 및 관련 법률조항과 비교ㆍ검토하고 우리나라 법제도의 문제점을 지적하고 개선방안을 제시하고 있다. This paper explores how the indirect expropriation provision in the Korea-U.S. FTA will affect the Korean legal system on the similar principle. To do this, it examines the development and the meaning of indirect expropriation in international law and regulatory taking in the U.S.; and compares with the Korean legal principle under the Constitution. The Republic of Korea and the United States signed Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement on June 30th, 2007 and it has entered into effect between two countries. The FTA will significantly reduce trade barriers and thereby expand the flow of trade and investment between both countries. However, there has been great controversy in Korea about the inclusion of "indirect expropriation" in Chapter 11 of the FTA, by which a foreign investor may bring suit against a host government. The Korean Constitution clearly mandates that just compensation be provided when a "restriction", "condemnation" or "public use" occurs. However, the Korean legislature and Korean courts did not consider seriously for the constitutional requirement, which compels compensation for not only expropriation but also severe interference equivalent to expropriation because Korea was pursuing rapid economic development under a strong central government. While the U.S. has developed the concept of a "regulatory taking" or "indirect expropriation" in order to strike a balance between necessary land use regulations and private property rights. So the impact of the FTA's indirect expropriation provision would seriously conflict with the Korean legal systems. Although KORUS-FTA might give Korean some negative impacts, a positive aspect of this agreement is that KORUS-FTA will accelerate the movement toward improving the Korean to produce a more consistent and systematic structure. Chapter 11 KORUS-FTA presents the risk of encroaching upon national sovereignty, but Korea may utilize the FTA as a powerful tool to improve its system toward some advanced and democratic structure because there is no doubt that making efforts to correct the long twist in Korean legal system for expropriation and compensation.

미국연방환경정책법

김춘환(Choon Hwan Kim) 조선대학교 동북아연구소 1999 동북아연구 Vol.12 No.-

N/A

행정입법절차에 관한 고찰

김춘환(Kim, Choon-Hwan) 조선대학교 법학연구원 2015 法學論叢 Vol.22 No.3

우리 헌법은 위임입법에 관하여 규정하고 있고, 1996년에 제정된 행정절차법에서 행정입법(명령, 처분기준 등) 및 그 절차(입법예고)에 관한 규정을 성문화해 놓고 있다. 그러나 미국과 독일의 행정입법절차에 비교하면 아직 개선의 필요와 여지가 많다. 미국은 1946년에 행정입법절차에 해당하는 규칙제정(rulemaking)을 포함한 행정절차법(Administrative Procedure Act: APA)을 제정하였고, 독일도 1976 년에 연방의 행정절차법(Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz)을 제정함으로써 새로운 시 대에 대처하고 있다. 그리하여 이 논문에서는 미국과 독일의 행정입법절차의 비교법적 고찰을 통하여 우리나라 행정절차의 개선에 시사점을 찾고자 한다. 그 이유는 미국과 독일 의 행정절차법의 제정에 모델이 되었을 뿐만 아니라 우리나라 와 학문적으로도 가장 밀접한 관계에 있으면서 우리의 법실무 및 법학에 지대한 영향을 미치고 있기 때문이다. 이 논문에서는 행정입법 및 절차의 개요, 미국의 행정입법에 관한 판례의 변천과 현황 및 내용과 절차, 독일 기본법상의 행정입법 에 관한 판례의 변천과 현황 및 내용과 절차, 미국과 독일의 행정입법절차의 차이점과 공통점, 우리나라의 행정입법의 내용과 절차, 그리고 미국과 독일의 행정입법의 절차가 우리나라에 미치는 영향 등을 검토하고 있다. This paper is reviewed the Executive Legislation Procedures of U.S.A. and German and it is reviewing whether any influence to those in Korean. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), Pub.L. 79–404, 60 Stat. 237, enacted June 11, 1946, is the United States federal statute that governs the way in which administrative agencies of the federal government of the United States may propose and establish regulations. The APA also sets up a process for the United States federal courts to directly review agency decisions. It is one of the most important pieces of United States administrative law. The Act became law in 1946. The Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz (VwVfG), which was enacted in 1977, regulates the main administrative procedures of the federal government. It serves the purpose to ensure a treatment in accordance with the rule of law by the public authority. Furthermore, it contains the regulations for mass processes and expands the legal protection against the authorities. The VwVfG basically applies for the entire public administrative activities of federal agencies as well as federal state authorities, in case of making federal law. One of the central clause is § 35 VwVfG. It defines the administrative act, the most common form of action in which the public administration occurs against a citizen. Administrative Procedures Act in Korean was established in 1986 and Korean constitution also stipulates regarding the delegated legislation but insufficient and the Administrative Procedures Act in Korean, which was enacted legislation in 1996. APA in Korea stipulated a clause concerning pre-announcement of legislation procedure. However, in comparison to the executive legislative procedures of the United States and Germany, APA in Korea still have many needs and improvements. In conclusion, it is recommended that the lawmakers consider the revision of the procedure of executive legislation notice under the Administrative Procedure Act as well as the further improvement of the regulation for legal affairs as tentative measures prior to the complete revision of the Administrative Procedure Act.

국회의원의 면책특권에 관한 연구

김춘환(Kim Choon Hwan) 한국국가법학회 2012 국가법연구 Vol.8 No.2

Parliamentary privilege (also absolute privilege) is a legal immunity enjoyed by members of certain legislatures, in which legislators are granted protection against civil or criminal liability for actions done or statements made related to one's duties as a legislator. It is common in countries whose constitutions are based on the Westminster system. A similar mechanism is known as parliamentary immunity. The rights and privileges of members are overseen by the powerful Committee on Standards and Privileges. If a member of the House is in breach of the rules then he/she can be suspended or even expelled from the House. Such past breaches have included giving false evidence before a committee of the House and the taking of bribes by members. Parliamentary privilege is controversial because of its potential for abuse; a member can use privilege to make damaging allegations that would ordinarily be discouraged by defamation laws, without first determining whether those allegations have a strong foundation. A member could, even more seriously, undermine national security and/or the safety of an ongoing military or covert operation or undermine relations with a foreign state by releasing information that the Government does not wish to be in the public domain. 면책특권이란 국민으로부터 민주적 정당성을 부여받은 의회가 국민의 대표기관이고 입법기관이며, 국정통제기관으로서 자신의 직무를 충실히 수행하기 위하여 인정되어야 하는 권리이다. 이러한 면책특권의 취지는 국회가 정부에 대한 정책통제기관으로서의 기능을 다하고, 국민의 대표자로서 공정한 입법 및 민의의 충실한 반영을 다할 수 있게 하기 위하여 국회의원이 자유롭게 직무를 수행하는 것을 보장하기 위한 것이다. 현행 헌법 제45조는 미국, 독일, 프랑스, 일본 등 선진국 의 헌법과 같이 국회의원들에게 국회에서 직무상 행한 발언과 표결에 관하여 국회 외에서 책임을 지지 않는다는 이른바 면책특권을 인정하여 국회의원들로 하여금 국민의 대표자로서 그 기능과 역할을 최대한 발휘할 수 있도록 하고 있다. 그러나 최근에 벌어지고 있는 면책특권의 논의는 국회의원의 자질에 관한 논란이 커지면서 국회의원의 면책특권을 제한하려는 방향으로 이루어지고 있다. 그러므로 자신들의 특권을 제한적으로 행사하려는 국회의원들의 의지와 면책특권이 제한적으로 사용되는 지에 대한 국민의 감시와 통제에 대한 의지가 중요하다.