학술논문
행정기본법과 행정절차법의 병존·양립으로 인한 문제점 및 통합방안 / Problems and improvements due to coexistence of General Act on Public Administration and Administrative Procedure Act
Document Type
Dissertation/ Thesis
Author
Source
Subject
Language
Korean
Abstract
2021년 3월 23일 행정기본법의 시행으로 우리 행정법제에 법 원칙과 기준이 되는 행정의 총칙적 규정이 마련되었다. 행정기본법은 학설과 판례에 맡겨져 오던 행정법이론·도그마틱을 명문화하여 법치주의를 실현하고 국민의 기본권을 향상시킨다는 점에서 의미가 있지만, 행정 전반에 적용되는 실체법으로 역할을 다하기 위해서는 몇 가지 주목해야하는 점이 있다. 행정기본법은 행정법제의 통일성·체계성을 도모하기 위해 마련되었다고 하나 과연 그 목적을 달성하고 있는가, 행정기본법의 법적 성격 및 지위는 무엇이며 행정의 다른 기본법들과의 관계는 무엇인가, 행정기본법은 행정의 일반법적 역할을 한다고 할 수 있는가, 그렇다면 행정절차에 관한 일반법인 행정절차법과의 관계를 어떻게 정립할 수 있는가. 행정의 실체법적 규정과 절차법적 규정을 분리하여 규율하는 것이 행정의 효율성을 달성하고 국민의 권리구제에 실효적이라 할 수 있는가. 위 물음에 대한 답은 행정기본법과 행정절차법의 비교를 통해 이뤄질 수 있다. 행정기본법과 행정절차법은 행정 전반에 적용되는 주요 법률이라는 점에서 행정법제를 이뤄가는 기둥이 된다. 다만 행정의 실체적 규율은 행정기본법에, 행정의 절차적 규율은 행정절차법에 규율하여 두 법을 병행 운용하는 것은 행정법을 분열시키는 결과를 초래할 수 있다. 그러므로 우선은 행정기본법과 행정절차법이 연계하여 상호보완적인 발전을 이뤄가야 하며 그 과정에서 체계정당성을 확립하는 작업이 이뤄져야 한다. 이를 위해 먼저는 행정기본법의 법적 성격과 지위를 분석함으로써 행정절차법과의 적용·해석 문제에 있어 충돌이 있는지 살펴볼 필요가 있다. 그리고 행정기본법과 행정절차법이 중복 규율하고 있는 부분과 유사·공통된 내용을 이분적으로 규율하고 있는 부분에 대한 면밀한 검토를 통해 향후 개정 작업을 통한 정비방향을 마련할 필요가 있다. 또한 고도로 과학기술이 발달한 4차산업사회의 혁신행정에 대응하기 위해서는 행정절차에 대한 강화를 통해 사인의 기본권을 보호해야 한다. 우리 행정절차법은 협의의 사전절차만을 규율하고 있으므로 행정기본법과 연계를 통해 절차적 적용범위를 확장하여 행정의 민주화를 이루고 법적 안정성을 강화할 수 있는 방안을 마련할 수 있다. 결과적으로 행정법제의 통일성·체계성을 확립함과 동시에 지능정보시대의 행정에 발맞추기 위하여는 행정기본법과 행정절차법이 통합하는 과정으로 나아가야 한다. 외국의 입법례를 살펴보면 행정의 실체법과 행정의 절차법을 병행 운용하는 사례는 없으며 단일의 행정절차법 또는 일반행정법을 두고 있다. 외국의 사례를 참고하여 행정절차법에 행정의 실체적 규율도 포함하여 처분의 절차를 중심으로 행정 작용의 전반을 규율하는 통합방식을 채택할지, 행정의 주요 법률들을 통합하여 일반행정법전으로 행정의 작용·절차·불복구제수단까지 일괄적으로 규율하는 통합법전 방식으로 나아가는 것이 타당한지 고찰하고자 한다. 통합의 실현은 장기적인 과제가 될 것으로 예상하지만, 본 글에서의 행정기본법과 행정절차법의 비교를 통한 연구가 행정기본법과 행정절차법의 체계정당성을 확립을 위한 시도가 되어 향후 통합법전의 완전성에 기여할 것을 기대하는 바이다.
On March 23, 2021, the General Act on Public Administration(hereinafter referred to as the GAPA), the legal principle and standard of the Administrative Act, was implemented. GAPA is valuable in that ensure democracy in and legality of administration and to enhance the appropriateness and efficiency by prescribing principles and general matters regarding administration. However, there are several points to note for the GAPA to serve as a general law. GAPA was prepared for ‘systematization through integration’ and security of organic connection‘, but is it achieving its purpose? What is the legal status of the GAPA and what is the relationship with other Framework Acts? Is GAPA a general law on the substance of administration? Administrative Procedure Act of general law on Procedures. If so, What is the relationship with the Administrative Procedure Act(hereinafter referred to as the APA), a general law on procedures? Is separating the substantive and procedural laws of administration effective in administrative efficiency and remedy of rights? The answer to the above question is the reason for comparing the GAPA and the APA. GAPA and APA are very important laws that apply to the entire administration. However, the separation of substantive law and procedural law can lead to division of administrative law. In that respect, GAPA and APA should be complementary, In the process, amendments should be made to establish systematization through integration. To this end, first, it is necessary to study the legal nature of GAPA and examine whether there is a contradiction in its application and interpretation with APA. In addition, GAPA and APA can review whether there is a overlap in the scope of discipline to prepare a direction for amendment. Next, in order to respond to the information society, fundamental rights must be protected by strengthening administrative procedures. Korea's APA regulates only the Pre-approval Process, it can achieve administrative democratic and strengthen legal reliability in connection with GAPA. As a result, in order to respond to modern science and technology including artificial intelligence on administrative law and achieve the systematicity of administrative law, GAPA and APA must proceed to the process of integration. From the comparative law perspective, Other countries, there is only one of APA or GAPA, and there is no case where the substantive and procedural laws are operated together. Regulation type of general administrative actions is classified into two types:administrative procedure act model, general administrative act model. Referring to foreign cases, it is considered whether to integrate into a procedure-oriented APA model or into a general administrative action model including Administrative appeals act. The realization of integration is expected to be a long-term task, It is expected that systematic regulation of administrative law will be possible in the future integrated law through comparative studies between GAPA and APA.
On March 23, 2021, the General Act on Public Administration(hereinafter referred to as the GAPA), the legal principle and standard of the Administrative Act, was implemented. GAPA is valuable in that ensure democracy in and legality of administration and to enhance the appropriateness and efficiency by prescribing principles and general matters regarding administration. However, there are several points to note for the GAPA to serve as a general law. GAPA was prepared for ‘systematization through integration’ and security of organic connection‘, but is it achieving its purpose? What is the legal status of the GAPA and what is the relationship with other Framework Acts? Is GAPA a general law on the substance of administration? Administrative Procedure Act of general law on Procedures. If so, What is the relationship with the Administrative Procedure Act(hereinafter referred to as the APA), a general law on procedures? Is separating the substantive and procedural laws of administration effective in administrative efficiency and remedy of rights? The answer to the above question is the reason for comparing the GAPA and the APA. GAPA and APA are very important laws that apply to the entire administration. However, the separation of substantive law and procedural law can lead to division of administrative law. In that respect, GAPA and APA should be complementary, In the process, amendments should be made to establish systematization through integration. To this end, first, it is necessary to study the legal nature of GAPA and examine whether there is a contradiction in its application and interpretation with APA. In addition, GAPA and APA can review whether there is a overlap in the scope of discipline to prepare a direction for amendment. Next, in order to respond to the information society, fundamental rights must be protected by strengthening administrative procedures. Korea's APA regulates only the Pre-approval Process, it can achieve administrative democratic and strengthen legal reliability in connection with GAPA. As a result, in order to respond to modern science and technology including artificial intelligence on administrative law and achieve the systematicity of administrative law, GAPA and APA must proceed to the process of integration. From the comparative law perspective, Other countries, there is only one of APA or GAPA, and there is no case where the substantive and procedural laws are operated together. Regulation type of general administrative actions is classified into two types:administrative procedure act model, general administrative act model. Referring to foreign cases, it is considered whether to integrate into a procedure-oriented APA model or into a general administrative action model including Administrative appeals act. The realization of integration is expected to be a long-term task, It is expected that systematic regulation of administrative law will be possible in the future integrated law through comparative studies between GAPA and APA.