법령의 개폐와 신뢰보호원칙에 대한 사법적 심사기준의 변화 ― 미국연방대법원 Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, 591 U.S. (2020)판결과 한국법상 신뢰보호원칙 ― = Changes in judicial review standards for the amending and abolishing of laws and the reliance interest protection principle — U.S. Supreme Court Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, 591 U.S. (2020) Comparative stud

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

In the U.S. Government’s view, DACA recipients have no “legally cognizable reliance interests” because the DACA Memorandum stated that the program “conferred no substantive rights” and provided benefits only in two-year increments. But the Government did not cite any legal authority establishing that such features automatically preclude reliance interests. These disclaimers are surely pertinent in considering the strength of any reliance interests, but that consideration must be undertaken by the agency in the first instance, subject to normal APA review. There was no such consideration in the Governmental Memorandum. Respondents assert that there was much for DHS to consider. They stress that, since 2012, DACA recipients have “enrolled in degree programs, embarked on careers, started businesses, purchased homes, and even married and had children, all in reliance” on the DACA program. But nothing about the governmental decision foreclosed or even addressed the options of retaining forbearance or accommodating particular reliance interests. The Government should have considered those matters but did not. That failure was arbitrary and capricious in violation of the APA.
Korean Supreme Court and Constitutional Court are also examining the complex and multifaceted interests that may arise due to the revision or repeal of laws and regulations. Now it is necessary to apply more expanded examination standards, to reconcile conflicting interests in the drafting of laws and decision-making process as if administrative plans are presented. It can be pointed out that the bilateral trust protection is inappropriate to apply to the issue of balancing multilateral interests. Meanwhile, in the process of establishing and deciding an administrative plan, the fact that numerous conflicts of public and private interests can occur, means that there are many stakeholders centered on the administrative plan. It should be recognized that, without being limited to the plan, legislators and administrative agencies have broad shaping powers over legislation and administrative actions and the so called “balancing oder”(Abwägungsgebot) may have general relevance in matters of regulating the interests of multiple stakeholders. This is because the “balancing oder” can be applied as a strict scrutiny standard that is more reasonable, fair and just, and is required to make an rational decision that is easily convincing and acceptable to the public.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 정영철, "환경계획재량의 통제규범으로서의 형량명령" 한국비교공법학회 14 (14): 275-304, 2013

2 박경철, "헌법원칙으로서 신뢰보호원칙 - 신뢰보호원칙에 대한 헌법재판소의 태도에 관한 비판적 연구 -" 한국헌법학회 16 (16): 339-382, 2010

3 이부하, "헌법상 신뢰보호원칙의 재정립- 헌법재판소 결정을 분석하며 -" 법학연구소 21 (21): 129-154, 2018

4 정다운, "신뢰이익의 손해배상에 관한 연구; 미국 계약법의 논의를 기초로하여" 성균관대학교 일반대학원 2020

5 정성헌, "신뢰이익에 대한 연구 -신뢰이익에 대한 비판적 검토, 그리고 새로운 이해을 위한 시론-" 한국민사법학회 70 : 167-210, 2015

6 서종희, "신뢰이익손해배상과 원상회복적 손해배상 ― 이행이익과 신뢰이익의 이분법적 사고의 문제점 ―" 비교법학연구소 36 : 159-204, 2012

7 최계영, "신뢰보호 원칙의 적용요건 - 공적 견해표명의 의미를 중심으로" 사법발전재단 1 (1): 665-698, 2016

8 배건이, "미래세대 보호를 위한 입법모델연구" 유럽헌법학회 (38) : 73-124, 2022

9 배건이, "미래세대 보호를 위한 법이론 연구; 세대간 계약을 중심으로" 한국법제연구원 2020

10 박정연 ; 이원복, "미국 행정청의 집행재량(enforcement discretion)에 관한 법리와 시사점 ― 부집행(non-enforcement) 행정작용을 중심으로 ―" 한국공법학회 45 (45): 221-248, 2017

11 배건이, "국가의 미래세대보호의무 실현을 이한 입법론적 연구" 10 (10): 2014

12 K. Shaw, "Speech, Intent, and the President" 104 : 1337-, 2019