행정법총론 재량행위

소개

행정법총론 재량행위에 관한 레포트입니다.

목차

Ⅰ. 재량행위 ······································································ 1
1. 재량통제 논의의 필요성·························································· 1
2. 기속행위와 재량행위구별························································· 1
(1) 구별의 필요성········································································ 1
(2) 구별기준에 대한 학설····························································· 2
(3) 판례의 경향·········································································· 5
(4) 판례의 문제점······································································· 7
3. 행정재량과 판단여지······························································· 7
(1) 불확정개념과 판단여지··························································· 7
(2) 우리나라의 학설···································································· 7
(3) 판례의 경향과 문제점····························································· 8

Ⅱ. 재량권의 한계··························································· 11
1. 의의······················································································ 11
2. 재량권의 일탈과 남용···························································· 13
3. 재량통제의 판례 경향···························································· 13
(1) 재량의 사법적 통제······························································· 13
(2) 재량의 사법적 통제의 유형··················································· 15

Ⅲ. 결 론············································································· 23

본문내용

Ⅰ. 재량행위
1. 재량통제 논의의 필요성
행정법의 고향이라고 불리는 법치행정의 원리는 국민의 권리를 보호하기 위하여 행정권의 행사를 가능한 한 법률로써 규정하여 행정권의 자의를 방지하는 것을 의미한다.
그러나 국민생존을 배려하기 위해서 복잡다양하고 변화무쌍한 행정수요를 해결하기에 일의적인 법률규정만으로는 어려운 일이 되었고, 행정목적수행의 탄력성과 융통성을 고려하고 행정권능의 행사에 있어서의 적절성, 적실성을 확보하기 위하여 행정청에 일정한 재량을 부여하게 되었다. 즉, 행정청이 구체적인 결정을 함에 있어서 정책적 ․ 행정적 판단의 여지가 부여되고 있는 것이다
재량이란 어디까지나 법이 의식적로 행정의 적법성과 합목적성 사이의 조화를 꾀하기 위해 부여한 것이라는 점이 음미되어야 하는데, 행정청이 자의적으로 법집행을 하여 국민의 권리를 침해하는 결과를 가져오기도 하였다. 그러한 침해로부터 국민의 권리를 보호하여 행정청의 자의적인 재량권의 행사를 제한할 필요성이 제기되었던 것이다.

2. 기속행위와 재량행위의 구별
(1) 구별의 필요성
기속행위와 재량행위를 구별할 필요성은 기속행위의 위반은 위법을 구성하여 재판통제의 대상이 되지만 재량행위의 위반은 부당행위에 그쳐 사법심사의 대상에서 제외되는 것에서 찾을 수 있다. 그러나 근래에는 재량행위에 있어서도 재량권의 일탈 ․ 남용은 위법행위를 구성한다고 보고 있으므로, 재량행위도 사법심사의 대상이 될 수 있다. 재량권의 일탈 ․ 남용은 본안심리를 통해서만 판단 가능한 것이므로 사법심사의 대상성 여부에 대한 구별실익은 거의 없다.
그러나 기속행위는 성립요건과 효과가 법령에 일의적으로 규정되어 있으므로 부관을 붙일 수 없으나 재량행위는 재량의 범위 내에서 부관을 붙일 수 있다는 점에서 양자의 구별 필요서이 있다. 또한 사법심사의 적격성에 있어서도 차이가 있다.

참고자료

· 없음