건축법상 신고제의 법적 문제 = Legal issues with the reporting system under the Building Act

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Under the administrative law, The report is divided into self-complete report and report requiring acceptance and their legal nature was a major subject of debate in the administrative law. And a number of precedents were also sentenced in this regard. The most controversial of these was the building report. Historically, at the time of the enactment of the building law, the building report was a self-complete report that only the degree of extension or renovation was allowed within a limited range. However, the building law has been gradually revised to allow building report for some new construction. It was also applied when the agenda regulations on building permits and permits were newly established. Unlike extensions and remodeling, it was not desirable to make it possible through self-complete report because the administrative office had to review whether the building could be approved under the building law. Furthermore, permission for development activities, which is a discretionary act that must undergo professional examination by the administrative agency, is not reasonable to be agenda as a building report. However, it seems that there was no concern about this in the process of revising the building law. As a result, at least in the case of new construction, it is no longer seen as a self-complete report, especially if a permit requiring professional examination by the administrative agency, such as a permit for development activities, is on the agenda. Under these circumstances, the precedent denied that it was a disposition in the past, but if authorization and permission were not on building report,“rejection act” was included in the dispute by considering it as a disposition, and if authorization and permission were on building report, it was seen as a report requiring acceptance. Recently, even if authorization and permission are not on building report, there is a condition that it is necessary for the public interest, but there has been a precedent that seems to be regarded as a report requiring acceptance.
In addition, the building report has a unique system in which it is difficult to find other cases in which it loses effect if construction is not started within one year without action from the administrative office. In response, the lower court and the administrative trial consider this similar to the "rejection act" of the building report and consider it as a subject of appeal or judgment. However, such a conclusion is not valid because the law does not require the action of the administrative agency.
The method of solving the above problems related to the building report shall exclude the agenda of permits requiring professional examination by the administrative agency from building report, and obtain building permits or separate permits from individual laws. In addition, if the building report is legitimate, it should be corrected to make it clear that it is a report that requiring acceptance. Naturally, the system that loses the effect of the building report is not valid in terms of relieving the rights of the people. Therefore, it is reasonable to amend the Building Act to be canceled by the administration, just like the building permit.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 김나현, "현행 건축법상 신고의 문제점에 관한 소고" 16 (16): 2016

2 김중권, "행정판례평선" 박영사 2016

3 박재우, "행정청의 건축신고 반려행위가 항고소송의 대상이 되는지 여부" (85) : 2011

4 송동수, "행정법상 신고의 유형과 법적 효과" 60 : 2013

5 박균성, "행정법론(하)" 박영사 2019

6 박균성, "행정법론(상)" 박영사 2019

7 이효진, "행정기본법의 ‘수리를 요하는 신고’에 대한 고찰-인허가의제를 수반하는 건축신고를중심으로-" 699 : 2022

8 홍정선, "행정기본법 해설" 박영사 2021

9 법제처, "행정기본법 해설"

10 법제처, "행정기본법 조문별 해설"

11 강현호, "행위개시통제수단으로서의 건축신고에 대한 고찰" 박영사 17 (17): 2012

12 정형근, "집중효가 발생하는 건축신고에 관한 법률적 검토" 34 (34): 2010

13 김민섭, "자체완성적 공법행위로서의 신고와 행정요건적 공법행위로서의 신고의 구별" 16 (16): 2015

14 김용섭, "원격평생교육시설 신고 및 그 수리거부 遠隔平生敎育施設 申告 및 그 受理拒否" 17 (17): 2012

15 윤기중, "수리를 요하는 신고의 독자성" 43 (43): 2015

16 서울시, "서울특별시 건축법･건축조례 질의회신집"

17 홍준형, "사인의 공법행위로서 신고에 대한 고찰 -자기완결적 신고와 수리를 요하는 신고에 관한대법원판례를 중심으로-" 40 (40): 2012

18 김종보 ; 박건우, "국토계획법상 토지형질변경허가와 건축허용성-대법원 2020. 7. 23. 선고 2019두31839 판결-" (64) : 2019

19 정훈, "공법상 신고의 법적 성질과 현실에서의 의미" (58) : 2013

20 김재협, "공법상 신고에 관한 고찰-건축법상 건축신고를 중심으로-" 6 : 2001

21 "경기도행정심판, “사전통지 없는 건축신고 효력상실은 절차 위반”"

22 김재광, "건축허가 관련 절차와 법적 쟁점 검토" 77 : 2017

23 정해영, "건축신고의 법적 성질" 14 (14): 2020

24 최계영, "건축신고와 인･허가 의제" (25) : 2009

25 우미형, "건축신고와 법해석의 한계-대상판결: 대법원 2023. 9. 21. 선고 2022두31143 판결-" 35 (35): 2022

26 김민섭, "건축법 제14조 제1항의 건축신고의 법적 성질-대법원 판례의 분석을 중심으로-" 28 (28): 2017

27 국회, "건축법 일부개정법률안 심사보고서" 2017

28 김종보, "건설법의 이해" 피데스 2018

29 박성연, "가축사육 제한구역을 정한 조례의 효력을 다툰 판례의 동향과 시사점" 23 : 2019