지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
This article concerns the subject of "the preliminary question in the administrative law". Particularly, there are significant differences between the Korean and American judicial system. In Korea, there are the administrative courts that are jurisdictionally separate from the ordinary courts, whereas the U. S. judicial system is developed without such separation. The separation is based on the private and public law distinction which was long recognized in German Law as an incident of Roman Law and the unsuitability of the ordinary courts to deal with the public law matters. Therefore, the preliminary question in administrative law does not exist in the American judicial system.
When a person decides to file a legal action, he must decide in which court system to file the case. The court in which a person files a case depends on which court has jurisdiction over that type of case. Whether ordinary courts have the authority to decide a preliminary question is known as preliminary jurisdiction in administrative law. In fact, a voidable administrative act is particularly problematic for the preliminary question, because a void administrative act is completely ignored by the ordinary courts. The void administrative act is a complete nullity, a still-born act which legally never comes into effect. Whether an illegal administrative act is void or voidable depends upon the seriousness and obviousness of illegality.
The preliminary jurisdiction of ordinary courts is spelled out only in § 11 of Code of Administrative Court Procedure. According to that clause the ordinary civil courts have the authority to decide a preliminary question if an administrative act is void. Therefore, whether ordinary criminal and civil courts have the authority to decide a preliminary question of illegality of a voidable administrative act depends completely upon case-law and legal literature. As regards driving with a voidable illegal license, the preliminary jurisdiction of ordinary criminal courts does not exist. For this reason such driving is not guilty. According to my understanding, the preliminary jurisdiction of the ordinary courts must result from Article 107 Paragraph 2 of Korean Constitutional law.
When a person decides to file a legal action, he must decide in which court system to file the case. The court in which a person files a case depends on which court has jurisdiction over that type of case. Whether ordinary courts have the authority to decide a preliminary question is known as preliminary jurisdiction in administrative law. In fact, a voidable administrative act is particularly problematic for the preliminary question, because a void administrative act is completely ignored by the ordinary courts. The void administrative act is a complete nullity, a still-born act which legally never comes into effect. Whether an illegal administrative act is void or voidable depends upon the seriousness and obviousness of illegality.
The preliminary jurisdiction of ordinary courts is spelled out only in § 11 of Code of Administrative Court Procedure. According to that clause the ordinary civil courts have the authority to decide a preliminary question if an administrative act is void. Therefore, whether ordinary criminal and civil courts have the authority to decide a preliminary question of illegality of a voidable administrative act depends completely upon case-law and legal literature. As regards driving with a voidable illegal license, the preliminary jurisdiction of ordinary criminal courts does not exist. For this reason such driving is not guilty. According to my understanding, the preliminary jurisdiction of the ordinary courts must result from Article 107 Paragraph 2 of Korean Constitutional law.
목차
Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 행정법상 선결문제에 관한 현행 이론과 실무
Ⅲ. 행정법상 선결문제의 법적 근거로서의 헌법 제107조 제2항의 ‘처분‘ 및 ‘재판의 전제‘ 등에 대한 해석
Ⅳ. 결론
참고문헌
〈Abstract〉
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
命令 · 規則에 대한 司法審査 : 憲法裁判의 觀点에서 본
헌법판례연구
2008 .02
-
東アジアにおける比較行政法の可能性
동북아법연구
2012 .01
-
EU法上 유럽司法法院(ECJ)과 會員國國內法院의 協力
비교법학연구
2007 .09
-
2019년 행정법(I) 중요판례평석
인권과 정의
2020 .01
-
2018년 행정법(I) 중요판례평석
인권과 정의
2019 .01
-
행정지도와 법률유보 및 구제에 관한 이론적 검토
한양법학
2011 .08
-
中国2014年《行政诉讼法》修正案的主要内容及未来发展
동북아법연구
2015 .01
-
國際聯合行政上의 諸問題
국제법학회논총
1960 .04
-
2017년 행정법(I) 중요 판례
인권과 정의
2018 .01
-
프랑스, 미국에서의 행정행위 개념에 대한 소고
행정법연구
2007 .12
-
글로벌 시대의 公益論
행정법연구
2007 .12
-
中國法院의 管轄 : 행정소송법을 중심으로
행정법연구
2006 .10
-
동아시아 행정심판제도 비교연구
행정법연구
2008 .08
-
행정법학의 개념과그 외연(外延) : 제도중심의 공법학방법론을 위한 시론(試論)
행정법연구
2008 .08
-
행정의 행위형식으로서의‘행정계획’개념에 대한 검토－헌법재판소 2000. 6. 1. 선고, 99헌마538등 결정,대법원 1982. 3. 9. 선고, 80누105 판결 및 대법원 2002.10. 11. 선고, 2000두8226 판결에 대한 평석－
일감법학
2013 .01
-
컴퓨터 프로그램 보호를 위한 行政法的 制度
행정법연구
2002 .08
-
처분사유의 추가·변경에 관한 판례의 평가와 보완점
고려법학
2010 .01
-
현대의 행정 변화와 행정법학 방법론 연구 : 전통적 행정법학의 방법론 분석과 그 보완을 위한 시론(試論)
행정법연구
2005 .10
-
中国瑕疵行政行为理论及其实践探索
동북아법연구
2017 .01
-
The World Court And Domestic Jurisdiction
국제법학회논총
1965 .03
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2010-363-002627484