Publications

Detailed Information

공익 개념의 재해석

DC Field Value Language
dc.contributor.advisor김병섭-
dc.contributor.author전혜림-
dc.date.accessioned2017-07-19T07:55:06Z-
dc.date.available2017-07-19T07:55:06Z-
dc.date.issued2013-08-
dc.identifier.other000000013420-
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10371/130404-
dc.description학위논문 (석사)-- 서울대학교 행정대학원 : 행정학과(정책학전공), 2013. 8. 김병섭.-
dc.description.abstract행정의 최고목표는 공익이다. 행정은 공익을 실현하기 위한 활동이다. 최근 들어 개인의 자유를 강조하며 전세계적으로 유행하던 신자유주의, 신공공관리론이 거센 비판을 받으면서 공익에 대한 관심이 다시 증가하였다. 우리가 공익의 개념을 알고자 하는 이유는 공익이 정책결정, 정책평가, 책임성과 정당성 등 다양한 가치판단의 기준으로 사용되기 때문이다.
본 연구는 헌법재판소의 판례를 통해서 공익이 어떻게 정의되고 있는지를 살펴보고 이를 통하여 공익 개념을 재해석하는 것을 연구의 목적으로 한다. 그 이유는 기존의 법학, 행정학의 영역에서 공익의 구체적인 의미가 무엇인지에 대해서는 본격적으로 논의되지 않았기 때문이다. 헌법재판소의 판결은 다른 정부기관을 상대로 기속력을 가지고 있기에 여기서 공익이 어떠한 문구로 표현되고 있는지 확인할 필요가 있다. 생각건대 구체화된 공익의 개념을 이용하여 이를 국가 행정의 실현가치로서 인식하고 정책을 시행할 필요가 있다는 점에서 공익 연구는 의미가 있다.
저자는 분석 방법으로는 질적 연구방법으로서 내용분석을 이용하였으며, 정정길이 주장한 공익의 네 가지 유형(공익실체설, 공동체설, 합계설, 절차설)을 참고하여 일부 수정한 개념을 사용하였다. 분석 범위는 헌법재판소가 만들어진 1988년 9월 1일을 기준으로 2013년 2월 28일까지의 위헌법률심판, 헌법소원(권리구제형, 위헌심사형)에서 공익이 언급된 판결로서 총 1,266개의 판례 중 778개의 분석 가능한 표본을 얻을 수 있었다. 778개의 표본은 공익 자체에 대하여 일정한 문구를 반복하여 사용하는 특징이 있었으며, 이를 앞에서 언급한 네 가지 유형에 따라 분류하였다.
분석 결과 헌법재판소의 판결에서 공익에 대한 유형 분포는 공익 실체설에 따른 공익 개념은 16.97%, 공동체설의 경우 76.22%, 합계설의 경우 0.64%, 절차설의 경우 6.30%로 설명 가능했다. 이를 통해 우리는 공익이 절차설에 입각하여 설명될 수 있다는 기존의 이론적 논의와는 달리, 실제 헌법재판소 판결에서는 공동체설에 입각한 공익 개념이 지배적임을 알 수 있다.
공동체설이 강조하는 세 가지 가치는 공동체 존속, 공동체 질서, 공동체 발전으로서 이는 우리나라 헌법 제37조 2항의 국가안전보장, 질서유지, 공공복리의 개념과 각각 일치한다. 다만 이때의 국가안전보장으로서의 공동체의 존속은 ① 협의의 국가안전보장으로서의 국방(국가의 독립, 영토의 보전), ② 헌법에 의한 국가기관, 제도의 유지, ③ 헌법과 법률의 기능을 확보하는 것으로 그 의미가 확장된다. 질서유지도 ① 협의의 질서유지로서의 치안뿐만 아니라 ② 국가 형벌권의 집행, ③ 사적 영역에서 자율에 맡겼을 경우 법적 분쟁과 혼란이 야기될 경우의 국가 개입을 정당화하는 것이다. 마지막으로 공공복리는 헌법재판소가 명시적으로 헌법 제119조 이하의 조문, 재산권의 공용수용을 정당화하는 헌법 제23조 3항이 적용된다고 판시한 부분으로 해석하였다.
이처럼 헌법재판소가 생각하는 공익은 헌법 제37조 제2항에 근거한 공동체설의 입장이라 판단할 수 있다. 그러나 공익이라는 표현 자체가 불명확한 개념이기 때문에 특정 법률, 특정 사안에서 그 의미가 구체화될 수밖에 없으며 이는 입법자의 입법형성권으로 정당화된다. 따라서 우리의 행정 현실에 맞추어서 구체적인 사안에 적합한 공익 개념을 적용하되, 입법과 행정 작용에 사후적인 영향력을 미칠 수 있는 헌법재판소가 주장하는 공동체설의 공익을 고려할 필요가 있다.
-
dc.description.abstractThe ultimate goal of public administration is public interest. Public administration is an activity to realize public interest. In recent years, with more emphasis put on personal freedom, the once popular Neo-liberliasm and New Public Management theory are under criticism, and the number of people turning their attention to public interest has increased. The reason for understanding 'public interest' is because it is used as a basis for various value judgements such as policy making, policy evaluation, accountability and legitimacy.

The purpose of this study is to redefine the concept of 'public interest' by investigating into how 'public interest' is interpreted in Constitutional Court cases. The reason for this research is because there has not been much discussion with respect to the concrete meaning of public interest in areas such as law and public administration. Since decisions by the Constitutional Court are binding upon other governmental institutions, it is necessary to see how public interest is expressed in what terms. In my opinion, a research on public interest is meaningful because there is a need to use a concrete concept of public interest and recognize it as a realizable value of this country's public administration and implement the policies accordingly.

For the method of analysis, qualitative research method is used to analyze the content. I also used four kinds of public interest (norm theory, substantiality theory, utility theory, process theory) categorized by Chungkil Chung with some minor modifications. The range of analysis includes unconstitutional law reviews and constitutional petition (remedy for a violation of right, judicial review) cases with reference to the term 'public interest' from September 1, 1988 when the Constitutional Court was first established to February 28, 2013. Out of the 1,266 relevant cases, 778 sample cases have been selected. The 778 sample cases have the characteristic of repeating certain phrases with respect to public interest, and these phrases will be classified according to the four kinds of public interests stated above.

The result of the analysis shows that the kinds of public interest in constitutional cases can be explained as follow: 16.97 % norm theory, 76.22% substantiality theory, 0.64% utility theory and 6.30% process theory. The result shows that unlike existing theoretical discussions which state that public interest can be explained based on process theory, public interest using substantiality theory is dominant in constitutional court decisions.

The three values emphasized in substantiality theory are the continuance, order and the development of the community. These values are consistent with the concept of 'national security, the maintenance of law and order, public welfare' under Article 37(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea. However, the meaning with respect to the continuance of the community for national security is expanded to include ① national security in a narrow sense, i.e. national defense (protecting the independence and territorial integrity of the state), ② maintenance of state institutions and systems established by the Constitution, ③ guaranteeing the functioning of the Constitution and Acts. Maintenance of law and order not only includes ① maintenance of law and order in a narrow sense, i.e. public security, but also justifies ② implementation of criminal law by the state, and ③ state intervention when legal disputes and confusion arise when left to individual autonomy in the private sector. Finally, public welfare is interpreted in a similar manner done by the Constitutional Court, which explicitly decided that Article 119 of the Constitution, and Article 23(3) of the Constitution which is used to justify public expropriation, are applied.

It can be concluded that public interest considered by the Constitutional Court mainly follows the substantiality theory based on Article 37(2) of the Constitution. However, because 'public interest' in itself is a vague concept, its meaning can only be determined in a specific law or situation, and this is justified by legislature's law making power. Therefore, while the legislative and administrative branches can apply the concept of public interest most applicable to a particular circumstance, both branches should consider the public interest of substantiality theory used by the Constitutional Court, which has an ex post influence over legislative and administrative measures.
-
dc.description.tableofcontents제1장 서론 ···································································· 1
제1절 연구의 필요성과 목적 ······································· 1
제2절 연구의 대상과 범위 ········································· 5
제2장 이론적 논의와 선행연구 검토 ······································ 12
제1절 공익에 대한 이론적 논의 ·································· 12
제2절 법학에서의 공익이 가지는 의미 ·························· 17
제3장 연구설계 및 분석방법 ··············································· 25
제1절 내용분석의 의의 ············································ 25
제2절 연구의 절차 ················································ 27
Ⅰ. 연구의 대상과 표본 선정 ···························· 27
Ⅱ. 공익의 유형별 코딩 구조 ···························· 29
1. 공익실체설의 경우-기본권의 충돌 ········· 30
2. 공동체설의 경우-공동체의 존속·유지·발전 36
3. 합계설의 경우 ································· 39
4. 절차설의 경우 ································· 39
제4장 분석 결과 ······························································ 40
제1절 공익의 4가지 유형 ·········································· 40
Ⅰ. 공익 실체설의 공익 ·································· 40
Ⅱ. 공동체설의 공익 ······································ 48
1. 공동체 자체의 존속 ·························· 48
2. 공동체의 질서 유지 ·························· 55
3. 공동체의 발전 ································· 59
Ⅲ. 합계설의 공익 ········································· 65
Ⅳ. 절차설의 공익 ········································· 66
제2절 위헌법률심판·헌법소원의 분석 결과 ····················· 68
Ⅰ. 위헌법률심판의 분석 결과 ·························· 68
Ⅱ. 위헌심사형 헌법소원의 분석결과 ··················· 69
Ⅲ. 권리구제형 헌법소원결과 ··························· 71
제3절 공익에 대한 헌법재판소의 입장 ·························· 73
제5장 결론 ···································································· 79

참고문헌 ······································································· 82
Abstract ······································································· 90
-
dc.formatapplication/pdf-
dc.format.extent1068592 bytes-
dc.format.mediumapplication/pdf-
dc.language.isoko-
dc.publisher서울대학교 대학원-
dc.subject공익-
dc.subject헌법재판소-
dc.subject위헌법률심판-
dc.subject헌법소원-
dc.subject공동체-
dc.subject헌법-
dc.subject.ddc350-
dc.title공익 개념의 재해석-
dc.typeThesis-
dc.description.degreeMaster-
dc.citation.pages1, 81-
dc.contributor.affiliation행정대학원 행정학과(정책학전공)-
dc.date.awarded2013-08-
Appears in Collections:
Files in This Item:

Altmetrics

Item View & Download Count

  • mendeley

Items in S-Space are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Share