강학상 인가와 소의 이익

심용재 원광대학교 법학연구소 2019 圓光法學 Vol.35 No.3

Legal approval acts as the supplement of legal actions between involved parties. Legal approval becomes invalid when serious or obvious defects are found within it. Due to its supplementary nature, they can also become nullified or invalidated when there are errors within the basic legal action. Thus, There are two possible cases if the legal approval is invalid. One is that the legal approval itself is invalid because it has serious and obvious defects and the other is that the basic legal action is invalid. However, the Supreme Court's consistent ruling is that if a suit is filed for confirmation of the nullification of the legal approval on the grounds that the basic legal action is flawed, there will be no profit in the lawsuit. But it is questionable. This is because it is not consistent with the Supreme Court's precedent for the benefits of confirmation and the system of the administrative litigation law. It is desirable to change the Supreme Court's precedent that claiming that the legal approval is invalid or revoked because there are flaws in basic actions does not benefit the court. First of all, if it is the screening criteria for deciding whether or not the basic behavior is defective, the defect of the basic behavior can be the defect of the approval itself. More importantly, there is no reason to judge that arguing for the nullification of the approval, citing the nullification of the basic act, is inappropriate under the Administrative Procedure Act. Nevertheless, the non-compliance of an appeal suit on the grounds of defects in basic conduct is to force the public to file a civil suit and then go through an appeal again, which is not only groundless but could also constitute violation of the people's basic right to appeal.

부작위위법확인소송의 소송요건 : 대상판결: 대법원 2009.7.23. 선고 2008두10560 판결

심용재 원광대학 법학연구회 2013 法學硏究 Vol.29 No.3

부작위위법확인소송의 소송요건 : 대상판결: 대법원 2009.7.23. 선고 2008두10560 판결

심용재 원광대학교 법학연구소 2013 圓光法學 Vol.29 No.3

지방의회의 조례제정권의 범위- 대법원 판례를 중심으로 -

심용재 단국대학교 법학연구소 2018 법학논총 Vol.42 No.3

Article 117 of the Constitution and Article 22 of the Local Autonomy Acts statethat ordinances can be enacted within the scope of statutes. Local governments mayestablish municipal ordinances relating to local autonomy, within the limit of Actsand subordinate statutes. As local autonomy includes self-governing authority andautonomous legislative power, Local governments may enact municipal ordinances onself-governing organizations. According to Articles 117 and 118 of the Constitution,the types and other matters pertaining to the organization and operation of localgovernments shall be determined by Act. the act on the organization and operation oflocal governments allows local governments to restrict the autonomy of localgovernments and the autonomy of self-governing legislation. At this time, how muchlocal autonomy can be restricted by the act, and how much the local government canbe defined as an municipal ordinance is a matter of constitutional interpretation ofthe local autonomy clause of our Constitution, and This is a question of what is thenature of local government and the essence of local autonomy in the end. Regardingthe nature of local autonomy, there are theories such as the theory of inherent rights,the theory of passing down rights, and so on but the Constitutional Court explainsthe local autonomy system as an institutional guarantee theory in the Constitution,and it is judged that the essence of the local autonomy system should not beinfringed. However, institutional guarantee theory does not explain clearly what theessence of local self-government system is and how to define its scope. I considerthe nature of local autonomy as residents autonomy, and local autonomy should beguaranteed to the greatest extent in light of the relationship between democracy andbasic rights. In addition, since the local council is the representative body of the residents and the legislative and top decision-making body of the local governments,the powers of the local council should be expanded rather than now. From that pointof view, I will examine the recently sentenced nullifying case of local councilordinance reconsideration (Adjudication on jurisdiction dispute between the localcouncil and the local governor, in fact). Finally, It is a state agency that the bodythat guarantees the uniformity of laws and regulations of the state, not a localself-governing body. so, I would like to briefly review the ruling of the SupremeCourt on the right to re-vote the ordinance. 우리 헌법 제117조와 지방자치법 제22조는 지방자치단체는 법령의 범위 안에서 조례를 제정할 수 있다고 규정하고 있다. 지방자치권에는 자치조직권과자치입법권이 포함되므로 지방자치단체는 자치조직에 관한 조례를 제정할 수있다 할 것인데 헌법 제117조와 제118조는 지방자치단체의 조직 및 운영에 관한 법률에 의하여 지방자치단체의 자치조직권과 자치입법권을 제한할 수 있도록 하고 있다. 이 때 지방자치단체의 조직 및 운영에 관한 법률로 얼마큼 지방자치권을 제한할 수 있는지, 조례로서 얼마큼 지방자치단체의 조직에 관해 규정할 수 있는지는 우리 헌법의 지방자치조항에 대한 헌법해석의 문제인데이는 결국 우리 지방자치의 본질과 지방자치권의 성격을 무엇으로 볼 것인지로 귀결될 것이다. 지방자치권의 성격에 대해서는 학설상 고유권설, 전래설 등의 견해가 있으나 헌법재판소는 헌법상 지방자치제도를 제도적 보장이론으로설명하면서 지방자치제도의 본질이 침해되어서는 안 된다고 판시하고 있다. 그러나 제도적 보장이론은 지방자치제도의 본질이 무엇인지, 그 범위획정을어떻게 할 것인지에 대해 명확히 설명해 주지 못한다. 필자는 지방자치권의본질을 주민자치로 보면서 지방자치제도와 민주주의와의 관계, 지방자치의 기본권 관련성에 비추어 지방자치권은 최대한 보장되어야 한다고 본다. 또한 주민의 대표기관, 지방자치단체의 입법 및 최고의사결정기관은 지방의회라는 관점에서 지방의회의 권한은 지금보다는 확대되어야 한다는 점에서 최근 선고된지방의회 조례안 재의결 무효확인 사건 (그 실질은 지방의회와 지방자치단체장간의 권한쟁의 사건)을 검토하겠다. 추가로 국법질서의 통일성을 담보할기관은 최종적으로 국가기관이지 지방자치단체의 기관은 아니라는 관점에서조례안 재의결 제소권에 대한 대법원 전원합의체 판결도 함께 검토하고자한다.

조례와 법률우위의 원칙 - 지방의회와 지방자치단체장간의 권한범위에 관한 대법원 판례를 중심으로 -

심용재 원광대학교 법학연구소 2015 圓光法學 Vol.31 No.1

The Constitution Article 117, paragraph 1 and the Local Government Act No. 22 regulate that an local ordinance can be enacted within the scope of the statute. 'Within the scope of the statute' means 'within the scope of the non-violation of the statute'. This rule is applied to all authorities of local government as well as the authority of autonomy in local government legislation, including authority of autonomy in local government organization and personnel administration. The Local Government Act stipulates the authority of the local council and the local government head. A local ordinance must not violate the authority of the local council and the local government head decided in the Local Government Act. For example, although The Local Government Act assigns the authority of the nominating local public officials to the local government head, if an ordinance allowing the local council to nominate local public officials is enacted, that ordinance is violating the statute. By the way, in case an ordinance regulates that the local council cannot directly violate the authority of the local government head but can check the authority of the local government head, can we say the ordinance is illegal?As the Supreme Court' precedents, an ex post and passive restraints are permitted, but priory and positive restraints are not allowed. The purpose of this review is the questioning the validity of ' ex post and passive ' and the checking the individual Supreme Court cases from a critical viewpoint.

반도체 실험장비를 위한 Plate의 온도제어

전창완,심용재 순천향대학교 부설 산업기술연구소 1999 순천향 산업기술연구소논문집 Vol.5 No.1

In this paper, a temperature controller for simiconductor test equipment is developed using LQG/LTR methodology. The developed controller is applied to a plate designed for temperature control of semiconductor chip. Control accuracy within ±1℃ and control time within 5minutes are attained successfully.

일본의 도매시장법 개정이 우리 농안법에 미치는 영향에 대한 소고

박신욱,심용재 한양법학회 2019 漢陽法學 Vol.30 No.4

The purpose of this paper is to examine the impact of the amendment of Japanese Wholesale Market ACT (Act No. 35 of 1971) in 2018 on our ACT on Distribution and Price Stabilization of Agricultural and Fishery Products (SAFact). Several facts have been confirmed for this purpose. First, the wholesale market and the legal system for agricultural and fishery products in Korea have been strongly influenced by Japan from the beginning. This influence does not seem to have changed much from Market Rules (Nr. 136) in 1914 to SAFact. Second, the contents of the enactment of Japanese Wholesale Market ACT and the revisions in 1999 and 2004 were confirmed, and the causes of these revisions were introduced. In addition, the revised contents of Japanese Wholesale Market ACT in 2018 were compared with the contents of 2014 revision. As a result of the amendment in 2018 we conclude that Japanese Wholesale Market has changed from a market that guarantees fairness to a market that pursues efficiency only. Third, we confirmed the structure of SAFact and introduced the amendment of SAFact since 2000. In addition, we tried to analyze the relationship between these amendments to the amendments of Japanese Wholesale Market ACT. We believe that the contents of the individual amendments have been strongly influenced by the amendments of Japanese Wholesale Market ACT in 1999 and 2004. Therefore the amendment of Japanese Wholesale Market ACT in 2018 is sensitive to our academic and business walkst. In conclusion, we analyzed whether these sensitive responses are valid from the view of Comparative Law. For this purpose, we introduced the meaning of comparative Law. In this regard, the Japanese wholesale market and our wholesale market are not comparable. It was also criticized that the introduction of various institutions under the influence of Japan into our SAFact was also done without comparative legal arguments. Therefore, we argued that we should no longer be bound by Japanese Wholesale Market ACT, but should form our own legal system.

Cooler와 Heater를 이용한 반도체 시험용 Plate의 온도제어

이호준,전창완,심용재,심운용 제어로봇시스템학회 2000 제어로봇시스템학회 국내학술대회 논문집 Vol.1 No.10

Cooler와 Heater를 이용한 반도체 시험용 Plate의 온도제어

이호준,전창완,심용재,심운용 제어로봇시스템학회 2000 제어로봇시스템학회 국내학술대회 논문집 Vol.2000 No.10

직접가열식 반도체 실험장비의 온도제어

이호준,전창완,심운용,심용재 제어로봇시스템학회 1999 제어로봇시스템학회 국내학술대회 논문집 Vol.4 No.10