의무이행소송의 도입과 그 방향 = Litigation for Mandatory Injunction

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The litigation for mandatory injunction can be an ultimate remedy against administrative agency`s omission or denial of lawful adjudication (order, license, permit etc.) which is required under applicable law, while the existing remedies under the present Administrative Litigation Act, that is, litigation for revoking denial or confirming the illegality of omission are restricted ones. Even though it has been a controversial issue since the 1984 reform of the Administrative Litigation Act, the mandatory injunction has not been introduced as one of the statutory remedies under the Act. And the Supreme Court of Korea has denied to review the claim for mandatory injunction either through the interpretation of the statutory delegation of the Administrative Litigation Act or under the natural boundary of judicial power. The urgent need to adopt more direct and fundamental remedies in the changing environments of modern administrative state had resulted in that the 2004 reform proposal of the Act from the Supreme Court and the 2007 government`s amendment proposal of the Act prepared by the Department of Justice, The 17th and 18th Congress, each of which was supposed to deliberate the reform proposals, did not pay attentions to the bills enough to make progress. Recently the Department of Justice initiated again the reform of the Act, where the mandatory injunction would be the most important one among new institutions. If the litigation for mandatory injunction will be included in the Act, the present form of litigation seeking confirmation of the illegal omission of administrative action should be repealed, but the litigation seeking revocation of the denial should be maintained. It is not necessary to bring both of the litigations for mandatory injunction and revocation of the denial. It is, however, necessary to make judgments of mandatory injunction and revocation of the denial. To decide in the case of mandatory injunction, courts need to review in more inquisitorial manner and decide the illegality of the administrative decision as of the closing day of trial. There can two types of mandatory injunction: one is to order a specific administrative decision which is cleary required by the applicable law, and the other is to order reopening of the administrative decision-making process using the remaining administrative discretion respecting the judgments. And it is also necessary to establish temporary injunction with it.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 김동희, "행정처분의 발급을 구하는 쟁송제도" 서울대학교 법학연구소 33 (33): 1992

2 대법원, "행정소송법 개정의견 설명자료"

3 대법원, "행정소송법 개정안 공청회 자료집" 대법원 2004

4 법무부, "행정소송법 개정 공청회 자료집" 법무부 2007

5 정하중, "행정법개론" 법문사 2011

6 윤가영, "행정개입청구권의 실현관점에서 바라본 의무이행소송, 그 도입의 전망과 문제점" 부산대학교 법학연구소 45 (45): 2004

7 박정훈, "항고소송의 대상과 유형" 대법원 2004

8 권수철, "토론문, In 행정소송법 개정 공청회 자료집" 법무부 2007

9 홍준형, "토론문, In 행정소송법 개정 공청회 자료집" 법무부 2007

10 김연태, "처분의 발급을 구하는 소송유형 -현행 제도의 문제점과 입법적 개선방안-" 고려대학교 법학연구원 (39) : 2002

11 김남진, "의무화소송" 한국공법학회 7 : 1979

12 김춘환, "의무이행소송의 허용성" 조선대학교 법학연구소 2 : 1996

13 최은정, "의무이행소송에 관한 연구 : 독일 행정법원법과 우리나라 행정소송법 개정안에 대한 검토를 중심으로" 서울대학교 대학원 2005

14 박균성, "의무이행소송ㆍ예방적금지소송에 대한 지정토론문" 법무부 2007

15 김연태, "의무이행소송ㆍ예방적금지소송" 법무부 2007

16 金昌錫, "義務履行訴訟 導入의 行政訴訟에 대한 影響" 한국법학원 75 : 2003

17 南 博方, "条解 行政事件訴訟法 第3版補正版" 弘文堂 2009