독일에서의 법관에 대한 직무감독권의 내용과 한계 = The Content and Limitations of the Duties Supervisory Authority for Judges in Germany

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Ensuring the independence of judges is a prerequisite for the judiciary to realize the freedom and rights of the people based on the trust of the people. The independence of judges should be guaranteed within the judiciary. Therefore, the duties supervisory authority of the judicial administrator should be exercised to the extent that it does not infringe on the independence of judges.
Currently, there is little comprehensive and systematic research on the contents and limitations of the duties supervisory authority of the judicial administrator for judges in Korea. On the other hand, Article 26 (1) of the German Judiciary Act stipulates that “a judge is only supervised within the limits of his independence,” explicitly defining the independence of judges as a limitation of duties supervisory authority. As a result, research and precedents related to the content and limitations of duties supervisory authority are accumulated in Germany. Therefore, it is necessary to look at discussions on the contents and limitations of duties supervisory authority for judges in Germany.
First of all, this paper(II) describes the significance of the duties supervisory authority in the German Judiciary Act and the independence of judges as a means and limitation of the duties supervisory authority. Based on this, the paper(Ⅲ) studies the basic position of the Federal Court of Germany on the limitations of the duties supervisory authority and the range and limitations of the duties supervisory authority through individual cases. In the paper(Ⅳ), the limitations of Evaluation of judicial performance based on the duties supervisory authority are studied. Finally, the paper(Ⅴ) looked at the redemption of judges’ rights to the disposition of the duties supervisory authority under the German Judiciary Act.
In order to secure judicial trust and realize a good trial through guaranteeing the independence of judges from within the judiciary, the independence of judges should not be violated from duties supervisory authority. Germany not only defines the independence of judges as a legal statement as a limitation of the exercise of job supervision, but also expands the scope of judicial relief against illegal exercise of duties supervisory authority. In Korea, there are no established precedents or theories on the specific scope and limitations of which duties supervisory authority are allowed. Therefore, it is necessary to establish specific criteria for the exercise of duties supervisory authority by referring to the relevant discussions in Germany. Furthermore, there is a need for discussions on official remedies related to the infringement of judges’ independence due to duties supervisory authority, referring to the case in Germany.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 성낙인, "헌법학" 법문사 2017

2 류영재, "사법의 책무와 독립성을 조화시키기 위한 실천적 과제 제안 : 사법행정 제도개혁을 중심으로" 법과사회이론학회 (60) : 97-118, 2019

3 강일신, "사법의 민주적 정당성" 2020

4 이상덕, "사법부 내에서의 법관의 독립 ― 독일의 사례․제도의 시사점을 중심으로 ―" 행정법이론실무학회 (34) : 65-106, 2012

5 김봉철, "법관의 사법행정참여에 관한 연구" 사단법인 한국법이론실무학회 8 (8): 57-83, 2020

6 박경열, "법관에 대한 ‘직무평정’과 ‘평가’ - 독일 사례의 분석과 제언 -" 한국법학원 179 : 46-98, 2020

7 정진수, "법관 근무평정제도에 대한 소고" 우리법연구회 I : 2005

8 정성민, "독일의 합의재판부 구성 및 합의부의 재판방식에 관한 연구" 법원행정처 20 : 2017

9 이종수, "독일의 사법제도에 관한 小考 — 특히 법관인사 등 사법행정을 중심으로 —" 법학연구원 27 (27): 89-117, 2017

10 박경열, "독일의 법관임용제도에 관한 실증적 연구" 사법정책연구원 25 : 2019

11 유동균, "독일 판사회의의 형태 및 역할에 관한 연구" 법원행정처 22 : 2018

12 이춘근, "독일 법관의 공정성과 윤리성 제고 방안" 17 : 2015

13 Hoepner, "Was sind Maßnahmen der Dienstaufsicht im Sinne der §§ 26 Abs. 3, 62 Abs. 1 Nr. 4 Buchstabe e des Deutschen Richtergesetzes?" 1964

14 Haberland, "Richterliche Unabhängigkeit und dienstliche Beurteilungen" 2009

15 Kissel, "Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz" C.H.Beck 2018

16 Joeres, "Die sachliche Unabhängigkeit des Richters in der Rechtsprechung des Bundesgerichtshofes" 2005

17 Papier, "Die richterliche Unabhängigkeit und ihre Schranken" 2001

18 Wittreck, "Die Verwaltung der Dritten Gewalt" Mohr Siebeck 2006

19 Schmidt-Räntsch, "Deutsches Richtergesetz" C.H.Beck 2009

20 Staats, "Deutsches Richtergesetz" Nomos 2012

21 Priepke, "Der Umfang der allgemeinen Überwachungs- und Initiativrechte der örtlichen Richterräte" 1989

22 Epping, "BeckOK Grundgesetz" C.H.Beck 2019