제재적 행정처분에 관한 사법심사 — 최근 대법원 판례 동향을 중심으로 — = A Study on the Judical Review of administrative sanctions — Focusing on recent Supreme Court of Korea’s precedents trends —

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

So far in korea’s administrative law academia the concept of administrative sanctions has not been clearly established. But already in judical review practice the Supreme Court of Korea’s precedents which considered characteristics of administrative sanctions and costitutional requests are establisched and applied. This paper has arranged and analyzed the Supreme Court of Korea’s precedents by types of administrative sanctions and by dividing the judical review into the stage of requirements and the stage of discretion in sentencing, Usually administrative sanctions have a retrospective character which is taken in reponse to corrent or past violation status, but at the same time they have a prospective character which are aimed at establishing the order, preventing risks and correcting violation status in the future. Thus when formulating a general theory about administrative sanctions, it is necessary to find a balance between the two characters. Each type of administrative sanctions has a distinct institutional orientation and different problems. Some types have a strong prospective element because of the institutional characteristics or the requirements of the authorizing provisions, so in the judical review of these types the prospective element should be properly considered.
The Supreme Court of Korea’s precedents have provided guidance that it should not be hastily judged to be an abuse of discretion when administrative agencies had sentenced the administrative sanctions according to the disposition standard which are provided in the statutes or adminisrative rules. Because that, the scope for courts to intervene in the disposition sentencing has narrowed, so in judical review practice is partially present the trend that courts restict administrative sanctions in terms of requirements, not in terms of discretion in sentencing. This trend attempts to interpret the requirements of the authorizing provisions very stictly or understand them as subjective responsibility, but it does not fit the nature and system of administrative legal responsibility. The nature of administrative legal responsibility can be found in the objective status of breach of duty, subjective intent or negligence are not necessary unless specially stipulated in the authorizing provisions. And Strict sanctions is needed in order to ensure fulfillment of duty. The strict interpretation principle of the authorizing provisions of infringing dispositions which is often used in judical review practice, just means that systematic interpretation is needed and analogical interpretation beyond the possible meanings of the text is not allowed when interpreting the requirements of the authorizing provisions, doesn’t mean that literal or in dubio pro reo interpretation must be chosen in the possible meanings of the text.
On the other hand excessive administrative sanctions should not be imposed in comparison the content and degree of breach of duty, so courts should examine whether administrative sanctions violated the proportionality principle. But administrative agencies have a certain amount of discretion in sentencing, and realistically it is diffcult to expect perfect implementation of the proportionality principle. Therefore courts should intervene only in cases of significant disproportion.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 박정훈, "협의의 행정벌과 광의의 행정벌" 박영사 2005

2 이현수, "행정행위의 직권취소-취소사유로서의 위법성판단과 취소기간" 충북대 16 (16): 2005

3 박재윤, "행정집행에 관한 통일적 규율의 가능성과 한계" 한국공법학회 40 (40): 433-466, 2011

4 송시강, "행정제재에 관한 법제 개선 방안 - 벌칙 중심 규제의 개혁을 위한 시론 -" 법학연구소 23 (23): 33-85, 2022

5 김태호, "행정법상 비례의 원칙 ― 대법원 판례를 중심으로 ―" 한국공법학회 37 (37): 89-116, 2009

6 정은영, "행정법상 비례원칙에 관한 연구" 행정법이론실무학회 (63) : 203-230, 2020

7 이상덕, "항고소송에서 처분사유 추가·변경 제한 법리의 재정립" 사법발전재단 1 (1): 573-624, 2022

8 이현수, "프랑스의 행정제재법리와 그 시사점" 세계헌법학회한국학회 25 (25): 77-108, 2019

9 정훈, "종업원의 위법행위를 이유로 사용자에 대해 행정제재처분을 하기 위한 책임법리 - ‘대부업법’상 영업정지처분과 관련하여 -" 한국공법학회 44 (44): 237-268, 2016

10 김완석, "조세징수의 간접적 강제수단의 문제점" 3 : 2003

11 이승민, "전자상거래 등에서의 소비자보호에 관한 법률 제32조" 로앤비 온주 2022

12 선정원, "영업자의 신뢰성에 대한 감독규제 -관광산업-" 한국법제연구원 (45) : 7-38, 2013

13 김병기, "수익적 행정행위의 철회의 법적 성질과 철회사유" 한국행정판례연구회 9 : 2004

14 이상덕, "산재보험법 제84조 제2항에 의한 부당이득금 징수처분의 상대방이 되는 ‘보험가입자’의 개념" (110) : 2016

15 이상덕, "산재보험 영역에서 과오급 보험급여 환수의 법적 문제 – 수익적 행정행위 직권취소 제한의 법리와 관련하여 -" 57 : 2013

16 이상덕, "사회복지법인 임시이사 해임처분의 방식" (126) : 2020

17 김중권, "사회보장급부지급취소처분과 환수처분간의 관계 - 대법원 2017. 3. 30. 선고 2015두43971 판결 -" 법조협회 67 (67): 341-365, 2018

18 박정훈, "부정당업자의 입찰참가자격제한의 법적 제문제" 2005

19 김용섭, "법적인 근거가 없음에도 공행정을 정당화하는 행정판례에 대한 비판적 검토 – 행정행위의 부관과 수익적 행정행위의 철회에 관한 논의를 중심으로 -" 17 (17): 2012

20 박정훈, "법규명령 형식의 행정규칙과 행정규칙 형식의 법규명령 - ‘법규’개념 및 형식/실질 이원론의 극복을 위하여 -" (5) : 2013

21 이현수, "독일 영업법상 영업금지" (658) : 2013

22 김치환, "공정거래법에서 규정하고 있는 시정조치의 법적 의미" (106) : 2004

23 홍정선, "경찰행정법, 3판" 2013

24 朴正勳, "行政訴訟法 改正의 主要爭點" 한국공법학회 31 (31): 3-3, 2003