집행정지와 행정의 의무 — 대법원 2022. 9. 3. 선고 2020두34070 판결 — = Suspension of Execution in Administrative Litigation Act and Duty of Administration — Supreme Court Decision 2020Du34070 Decided September 3, 2022 —

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

In case of a decision of unconstitutionality because of tax law which is unconstitutional after the tax disposition, according to the existing case law, citizens who have faithfully paid taxes on the basis of the tax disposition could not receive a refund, and only citizens who actively appeal against it could be saved, which will endanger the equal treatment of taxpayers. This interpretation is a practical limitation created by our legal system, which is based on the so-called Rudolf von Jhering's struggle-based view of rights as rights-oriented thinking.
On the other hand, from the perspective of the administration’s obligation under the rule of law, even if the other party is no longer able to argue, the question can be raised as to whether the administration is obligated to restore the proper state if there is a solution in light of the entire legal order. This is the new question that is raised by the targeted decision, which departs from the existing rights-oriented thinking.
The decision summarized the existing controversy regarding the effectiveness of an enforcement decision and provided the legal principle that even if an decision on the suspension of execution is issued in an administrative appeal proceeding against a sanction, if the decision is finally determined to be legitimate, the agency must take necessary measures to ensure that the sanction is enforced at the same level as if there was no decision on the suspension in the first place. Conversely, if an decision on the suspension of execution is not obtained, but a judgment revoking the sanction is confirmed in the underlying proceedings and the sanction is found to be unlawful, the agency must take the necessary measures to eliminate the adverse consequences of the sanction on the other party. This is significant in that it combines the issues that were previously discussed as the effectiveness of the decision on the suspension and the duty to remove of unlawful results(duty to restoration) as the scope of the binding force and presents them as the administrative agency's obligation to take action.
In order to theoretically understand this obligation of the administrative agency, I believe that through Hans Kelsen and Adolf J. Merkl's thesis of the substantial equivalence of administration and judiciary, even if an unjust result occurs through a court trial, the obligation of the administration to eliminate it in the first place can be derived from the principle of the rule of law, and the case law theory can be systematically explained around this legal obligation.
In the past, there have been many arguments criticizing our administrative law system as a legal system that is insufficient for the relief of people's rights compared to the German legal system. But the main purpose of administrative law and administrative litigation is to serve as a public forum for the reconciliation of public interest and private interest. Now, our administrative law has passed the stage of administrative independence and superiority, and is in the beginning of entering the second stage, which emphasizes simple civil liberalism, and the third stage, which reconciles the conflict between public interest and private interest. Its realization depends on the implementation of administrative activism contained in the General Act On Public Administration. These are the characteristics of Korea's administrative law system, which I believe can be characterized as a “cooperative legal system of administration and judiciary.”

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 석종현, "헌법재판소의 토지초과이득세법 제10조 등의 헌법불합치결정" 1 : 1995

2 최계영, "행정소송의 제소기간에 관한 연구" 서울대학교 대학원 2008

3 박정훈, "행정소송의 구조와 기능" 박영사 2006

4 김연태, "행정소송법상 집행정지- 집행정지결정의 내용과 효력을 중심으로" 한국공법학회 33 (33): 613-638, 2004

5 우미형, "행정소송법상 집행정지 절차의 원칙과 예외" 행정법이론실무학회 (67) : 69-99, 2022

6 박정훈, "행정법의 체계와 방법론" 박영사 2005

7 하명호, "행정법 제5판" 박영사 2023

8 박재윤, "행정기본법 제정의 성과와 과제 — 처분관련 규정들을 중심으로 —" 행정법이론실무학회 (65) : 1-31, 2021

9 박정훈, "행정기본법 과 행정법학의 과제 -인식 운용 혁신-" 2021

10 박재윤, "항고소송의 원고적격과 행정국가의 통제방안" 한국행정법학회 (22) : 47-79, 2022

11 박재윤, "한국의 적극행정과 법적 역동성" 2021

12 이은상, "통합적 일반행정법전의 실현을 위한 법제 정비 방향" 행정법이론실무학회 (67) : 1-39, 2022

13 경건, "취소판결의 기속력의 내용 ― 특히 적극적 효력으로서의 원상회복의무와 관련하여 ―" 서울시립대학교 법학연구소 24 (24): 293-326, 2017

14 임성훈, "취소판결의 기속력에 따른 결과제거의 범위 ― 공무원 신분박탈처분 취소판결에 따른 계급정년 연장 여부를 중심으로 ―" 서울시립대학교 법학연구소 30 (30): 287-324, 2022

15 김유환, "취소소송의 판결의 기속력에 관한 판례이론 검토" 행정법이론실무학회 (64) : 1-22, 2021

16 김창조, "취소소송에 있어서 판결의 기속력" 법학연구원 (42) : 95-120, 2013

17 박정훈, "집행정지결정에 의해 처분의 상대방이 얻은 유리한 지위 내지 이익을 제한·회수할 방안과 그 한계" 한국행정판례연구회 26 (26): 213-259, 2021

18 소순무, "조세와 헌법재판" 9 : 1998

19 김찬희, "오트마 뷜러의 주관적 공권론에 관한 연구" 서울대학교 2022

20 윤철홍, "예링의 권리개념에 대한 소고" 한국민사법학회 (38) : 539-574, 2007

21 장경학, "예링법학의 민사법적 측면" 8 (8): 1959

22 김학태, "예링(Rudolf von Jhering)의 법사상에 관한 고찰" 법학연구소 (31) : 715-743, 2008

23 한스 켈젠, "순수법학: 법학의 문제점에 대한 서론" 박영사 2018

24 김길량, "보조금교부결정의 취소처분에 대한 효력정지기간 중 교부된 보조금의 반환의무(2017. 7. 11. 선고 2013두25498 판결: 공2017하, 1627)" (113) : 2017

25 박현정, "보조금 지원약정 해지와 집행정지의 효력" 동북아법연구소 9 (9): 405-436, 2016

26 김중권, "병역의무기피자인적사항의 공개의 법적 성질의 문제점" 한국행정판례연구회 25 (25): 209-237, 2020

27 최병조, "법률관계를 고찰하는 양대 관점-의무중심적 고찰과 권리중심적 고찰-" 59 (59): 2018

28 루돌프 폰 예링, "법과 권리를 위한 투쟁" 문예출판사 2022

29 한명진, "독일법상 금전지급 환수처분과 집행정지의 효력 - 공무원급여와 장해연금급여 환수 처분 사례를 중심으로 -" 법학연구소 41 (41): 136-162, 2017

30 강구철, "공법상의 결과제거청구권" 14 : 2002

31 박규하, "공법상 결과제거청구권" 9 : 2000

32 박정훈, "行政法과 ‘民主’의 自覺 ― 한국 행정법학의 미래 ―" 행정법이론실무학회 (53) : 1-24, 2018

33 박정훈, "積極行政 實現의 法的 課題 － ‘적극행정법’으로의 패러다임 전환을 위한 試論 －" 한국공법학회 38 (38): 329-353, 2009