인문학
사회과학
자연과학
공학
의약학
농수해양학
예술체육학
복합학
DBpia AI
AI 에이전트
AI 아이디어
AI 리더
AI 뷰어
Citeasy
크롬 서지관리 다운로드
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
I explore on correlation between the system of judicial decision after due consideration of circumstances(Sajeungpankeyul) and public welfare in this article. Our country introduced the system of judicial decision after due consideration of circumstances to secure public welfare, nevertheless this judicial system is against the principle of constitutional government. Our Administrative Litigation Act has provided on judicial decision after due consideration of circumstances at Article 12 and Article 28 since 1951.
Most of scholars can not define an exact definition of public welfare which is the requirement of judicial decision after due consideration of circumstances because of uncertainness, abstractness, vagueness and comprehensiveness of that notion. So the judiciary hasn't defined it directly but has explained it indirectly in lots of cases. Therefore the judiciary is apt to interpret and apply it arbitrarily to a case. For that reason, it is needed to establish reasonable and concrete criteria to apply public welfare to a case.
It is difficult to find discrimination between the notion of public welfare and that of public interest. Most of scholars majoring on public law regard two notions as same thing. But I think that the notion of public welfare is more comprehensive and broader than that of public interest.
In conclusion, We have discovered some adverse effects of the system of judicial decision after due consideration of circumstances. It has to be gradually disappeared by utilizing alternatives as like temporary litigation system and preventing each case from accumulation of facts over the illegal administrative dispositions.
Most of scholars can not define an exact definition of public welfare which is the requirement of judicial decision after due consideration of circumstances because of uncertainness, abstractness, vagueness and comprehensiveness of that notion. So the judiciary hasn't defined it directly but has explained it indirectly in lots of cases. Therefore the judiciary is apt to interpret and apply it arbitrarily to a case. For that reason, it is needed to establish reasonable and concrete criteria to apply public welfare to a case.
It is difficult to find discrimination between the notion of public welfare and that of public interest. Most of scholars majoring on public law regard two notions as same thing. But I think that the notion of public welfare is more comprehensive and broader than that of public interest.
In conclusion, We have discovered some adverse effects of the system of judicial decision after due consideration of circumstances. It has to be gradually disappeared by utilizing alternatives as like temporary litigation system and preventing each case from accumulation of facts over the illegal administrative dispositions.
본문·목차
인공지능 문자 인식 모델을 통해 추출된 텍스트로, 일부 오타나 오류가 포함될 수 있으나 지속적으로 개선 중입니다.
오류를 발견하셨다면 해당 부분을 드래그한 후 ' 를 통해 신고해주세요.
오류를 발견하셨다면 해당 부분을 드래그한 후 ' 를 통해 신고해주세요.
최근 본 자료 전체보기
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2012-363-003958222
