항고소송에서의 증명책임론의 재검토와 판례의 이론적 해명 = Review of the Burden of Proof in the Trial of Appeal Litigation and Interpretation of Court Theory

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Although the factum probandum of administrative litigation is different from that of civil procedure, the Supreme Court decides on problems of burden of evidence in the trial of appeal litigation based on theories from the trial of civil procedure. Scholars also support these decisions based on theories originating from civil procedure. However, these theories cannot adequately solve problems in allotting the burden of proof between plaintiff and defendant. To get more appropriate results in allotting the burden of evidence in the trial of appeal litigation, we need to pursue the intrinsic attribute of the concept of burden of proof and the characteristics of appeal litigation.
The ideology of burden of proof consists of fairness and policy consideration. Moreover, complicated administrative laws and regulations govern the burden of evidence in the trial of appeal litigation. Therefore, allotting the burden of proof in the trial should involve an interpretation of laws and regulations. This situation differs from that in the trial of civil procedure. The recent Supreme Court decisions provide insights on this matter from the same perspective. The recent decisions reveal legal assessments on hard cases in allotting the burden of proof in the trial of appeal litigation.
For this reason, I propose a new perspective on the problem of allotting the burden of evidence in appeal litigation. Allotting the burden of evidence should not be understood as a kind of procedural skill, but rather as an interpretative agenda of laws and regulations. According to this new perspective, we have to allot the burden of proof to defendants basically. However, we assume exceptions at any time from the interpretation of law and regulations. The foremost exception would come from the dominion of factum probandum. If the plaintiff exclusively possesses the opportunity to access the information about the factum probandum, then we have to allot the burden to the plaintiff. Of course, this principle has to submit to the ideology of burden of proof itself.
If we carefully take this perspective on the burden of evidence, I believe we can explain the Supreme Court decisions on this matter more appropriately.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 김유환, "현대 행정법" 2023

2 하명호, "행정쟁송법" 2013

3 김창조, "행정재량과 주장·증명책임" 한국행정판례연구회 25 (25): 111-166, 2020

4 박정훈, "행정소송의 구조와 기능" 2006

5 구욱서, "행정소송에서의 입증책임" 2004

6 최세영, "행정소송에 있어서의 입증책임" 법원행정처 12 : 1981

7 최선웅, "행정소송법상 직권심리의 범위" 2016

8 정하중, "행정법개론" 2022

9 박균성, "행정법강의" 2022

10 홍준형, "행정법, 제2판" 2017

11 김남진, "행정법" 2022

12 김동희, "행정법" 2022

13 김철용, "행정법" 2022

14 구욱서, "조세소송에서의 입증책임" 2004

15 Rosenberg, Leo, "입증책임론" 1995

16 오석락, "입증책임론" 1999

17 조재호, "업무상 질병의 인과관계 증명책임 완화 판례에 대한 검토-대법원 2017.8.29. 선고 2015두 3867 판결-" 2018

18 권오성, "업무상 재해의 상당인과관계에 관한 증명책임 재검토" 서울대학교노동법연구회 (50) : 171-201, 2021

19 오윤식, "업무상 재해 요건과 증명책임" 한국법학원 140 : 365-392, 2014

20 이시윤, "신민사소송법" 2020

21 법원행정처, "법원실무제요 행정" 2016

22 호문혁, "민사소송법" 2014

23 강현중, "민사소송법" 2002

24 이상덕, "결혼이민[F-6(다)목] 체류자격 요건인 ‘자신에게 책임이 없는 사유로 정상적인 혼인관계를 유지할 수 없는 사람’의 의미와 증명책임" (122) : 2019

25 정해영, "개발행위허가에 관한 항고소송에서 증명책임" 2022

26 정하중, "行政訴訟에 있어서 職權探知主義와 立證責任" 법학연구원 (64) : 205-267, 2012

27 Glaeser, Schmitt, "Verwaltungsprozeßrecht, 13 Aufl" 1994

28 Schenke, Wolf-Rüdiger, "Verwaltungsprozessrecht 12.Aufl" 2009