행정규제완화수단으로서의 신고에 관한 연구
저자
발행사항
서울 : 경희대학교 법학전문대학원, 2014
학위논문사항
학위논문(박사) -- 경희대학교 법학전문대학원 , 법학과 , 2014. 8
발행연도
2014
작성언어
한국어
DDC
340 판사항(22)
발행국(도시)
서울
기타서명
A Study on Reporting as Relaxation Means of Adiministrative Restraints
형태사항
ⅸ, 260 p. : 삽화 ; 26 cm
일반주기명
지도교수: 박균성
경희대학교 논문은 저작권에 의해 보호받습니다.
참고문헌: p. 242-255
소장기관
On the one hand, reporting is government restriction means. This is the product of hard work to meet both the need of guaranteeing freedom of citizen by minimizing administrative interference and the need of gathering information for efficiency of administration. On the other hand, reporting works as measure relaxation of public controls. It can be the most appropriate means usable when certain measure is judged to be excessive or when there are political necessity to alleviate burden.
This thesis attempted to look into a series of restraints like reporting, registration and permission in the view of that reporting works not only as restriction means but also as alleviation of burden. Also, it includes if reporting is functioning properly as relaxation means, whether there are other problems in the procedure, whether reporting with acceptance should be acknowledged by itself and whether there are other problems in whole regulatory system if it should be. For these, I searched a lot of current and out of date relevant laws and regulations about reporting as well as introduced doctrines and fundamental principles about it empirically.
The outcome of this study has brought me to the conclusion as follow.
(1) First of all, I tried to seek the rationale for existence two type of reporting(self-completion reporting and reporting with acceptance) and I could find that mr. prof. Kim Dochang, who had mentioned a concept meaning reporting with acceptance for the first time in korea, explained about reporting and then he divided self-completion reporting into reporting as requisite for an administrative action from his book in 1993.
(2) There are notification, inform, return, submission, application which are used along with reporting in practice. I tried to divided them with the directivity and equivalence of parties as clear as I can. Therefore notification and inform can be divided with the equivalence of parties, in other word, notification can be used if parties are not even, and inform is usable if parties are level position. Reporting and application have something in common with both are public action of citizen, while reporting is mandatory if there are regulation who wants to begin certain kinds of business should report about it but, application is not. However it can be obligated in the case of application for registration or permission. Also, the authorities should give an answer in reponses to every application in contrast with reporting. Reporting imposes authorities only an obligation to dealing with it regardless of the effect of dealing.
(3) It is clear that phase of acceptance does exist and is necessary in the procedure self-completion reporting as well as reporting with acceptance. Because relevant officer has to screen the reporting superficially even if it is not required acceptance.
By the way, some of reporting form in force have defect and it is discordance between administrative regulations and the form. Thus the contents of the reporting form in force should match up regulations and reporting form should not demand additional data if relevant regulations don’t provide it. Also, the biggest defect of the procedure of reporting is vague and inconsistent. Therefore, I think that standardization is needed and provided different procedures to each different types of reporting. And regulations about the procedure must provide details about reporting apparently for the person who want to report to authorities to understand character of reporting prior to actual process and to anticipate the whole steps of it.
It is not just a internal proceeding but a public action of authorities to issue of certificate of completion of report and it is gescheftsehnliche Handlung-like action and it means notarizing reporting is concluded. Likewise, to refuse issuing one is should be acknowledged as a administrative measure and be argued on account of violating legal interests of the adversary.
(4) To check on that reporting as measure of relaxation public controls is functioning well, I did search laws and regulations providing duty of report, which had provided that people should get permission or should registrate in the past. I was surprised that there are not that much cases which the way of restraint is changed from permission or registration to reporting as people anticipated. Furthermore, I could find barely few cases which described as reporting with acceptance among that. Accordingly, we may not explain reporting with acceptance appeared in a series of process relaxative a lot of restraints undefinedly when we describe the origins of reporting with acceptance. Rather, we can say that legislators made reporting regulations without enough consideration by mistake in an atmosphere people asked to relaxation of restraints and government adopted relaxation policy. That would be made in a way of permission or registration in different circumstances.
(5) Inquiry about reporting with acceptance matters only in korea. I suggest to reestablish four-stepped regulatory system consist of permission, registration, reportion with acceptance, and self-completion reporting to embrace reporting with acceptance within the legal system as a solution for this. According to this, permission is used when the legislator wants to forbid something-could affect public interests severely- generally and to allow exceptionally. Surely conditions are extremely strict in case of permission and requirements of registration are less strict than those of permission and the conditions of reporting with acceptance are much less than those of registration. Thus substantive requirements are contained and screening is inevitably substantive. On the contrary requirements of registration or reporting with acceptance could include substantive things but less substantial then those of permission. The examination could do substantively as well as procedurally, but less stringent than in case of permission. Person who report something to authorities should be able to exercise what he wants-object of reporting regardless of the type of reporting, if reporting meets requirements in order. I thought that prohibition is removed after authorities issue permission or registrate on the contrary banning is lifted at the same time valid reporting with acceptance is completed. A relevant officer could have discretion whether to issue permission on the basis of degrees of public interests-related. In other words, authorities have no discretion whether to accept it when a person wants to registrate or reporting with acceptance to authorities because of irrelevance with public interests, while authorities could have discretion whether to issue permission because of relevance with public interests.
서지정보 내보내기(Export)
닫기소장기관 정보
닫기권호소장정보
닫기오류접수
닫기오류 접수 확인
닫기음성서비스 신청
닫기음성서비스 신청 확인
닫기이용약관
닫기학술연구정보서비스 이용약관 (2017년 1월 1일 ~ 현재 적용)
| 주요 개정내역 | 변경 사유 |
|---|---|
| · 수탁업체 콘소시엄 기관명 및 위탁기간 명시 | · 제6조(개인정보 처리업무의 위탁) 구체화 |
한국교육학술정보원은 정보주체의 자유와 권리 보호를 위해 「개인정보 보호법」 및 관계 법령이 정한 바를 준수하여, 적법하게 개인정보를 처리하고 안전하게 관리하고 있습니다. 이에 「개인정보 보호법」 제30조에 따라 정보주체에게 개인정보 처리에 관한 절차 및 기준을 안내하고, 이와 관련한 고충을 신속하고 원활하게 처리할 수 있도록 하기 위하여 다음과 같이 개인정보 처리방침을 수립·공개합니다.
주요 개인정보 처리 표시(라벨링)
목 차
제1조(개인정보의 처리 목적)
제2조(개인정보의 처리 및 보유 기간)
제3조(처리하는 개인정보의 항목)
제4조(개인정보파일 등록 현황)
제5조(개인정보의 제3자 제공)
제6조(개인정보 처리업무의 위탁)
제7조(개인정보의 파기 절차 및 방법)
제8조(정보주체와 법정대리인의 권리·의무 및 그 행사 방법)
제9조(개인정보의 안전성 확보조치)
제10조(개인정보 자동 수집 장치의 설치·운영 및 거부)
제11조(개인정보 보호책임자)
제12조(개인정보의 열람청구를 접수·처리하는 부서)
제13조(정보주체의 권익침해에 대한 구제방법)
제14조(추가적 이용·제공 판단기준)
제15조(개인정보 처리방침의 변경)
제1조(개인정보의 처리 목적)
제2조(개인정보의 처리 및 보유 기간)
3년
또는 회원탈퇴시까지5년
(「전자상거래 등에서의 소비자보호에 관한3년
(「전자상거래 등에서의 소비자보호에 관한2년
이상(개인정보보호위원회 : 개인정보의 안전성 확보조치 기준)
제3조(처리하는 개인정보의 항목)
제4조(개인정보파일 등록 현황)
개인정보파일 검색(privacy.go.kr)| 개인정보파일의 명칭 | 운영근거 / 처리목적 | 개인정보파일에 기록되는 개인정보의 항목 |
보유기간 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 학술연구정보서비스 이용자 가입정보 | 한국교육학술정보원법 정보추제 동의 | 필수 | ID, 비밀번호, 성명, 생년월일, 신분(직업구분), 이메일, 소속분야, 웹진메일 수신동의 여부 | 3년 또는 탈퇴시 |
| 선택 | 소속기관명, 소속도서관명, 학과/부서명, 학번/직원번호, 휴대전화, 주소 | |||
제5조(개인정보의 제3자 제공)
제6조(개인정보 처리업무의 위탁)
제7조(개인정보의 파기 절차 및 방법)
제8조(정보주체와 법정대리인의 권리·의무 및 그 행사 방법)
제9조(개인정보의 안전성 확보조치)
제10조(개인정보 자동 수집 장치의 설치·운영 및 거부)
제11조(개인정보 보호책임자)
| 구분 | 담당자 | 연락처 |
|---|---|---|
| KERIS 개인정보 보호책임자 | 정보보호본부 안재호 |
- 이메일 : jinuk@keris.or.kr - 전화번호 : 053-714-0158 - 팩스번호 : 053-714-0195 |
| KERIS 개인정보 보호담당자 | 개인정보보호부 송진욱 | |
| RISS 개인정보 보호책임자 | 교육학술데이터본부 정광훈 |
- 이메일 : giltizen@keris.or.kr - 전화번호 : 053-714-0149 - 팩스번호 : 053-714-0194 |
| RISS 개인정보 보호담당자 | 학술진흥부 길원진 |
제12조(개인정보의 열람청구를 접수·처리하는 부서)
제13조(정보주체의 권익침해에 대한 구제방법)
제14조(추가적인 이용ㆍ제공 판단기준)
제15조(개인정보 처리방침의 변경)
자동로그아웃 안내
닫기인증오류 안내
닫기귀하께서는 휴면계정 전환 후 1년동안 회원정보 수집 및 이용에 대한
재동의를 하지 않으신 관계로 개인정보가 삭제되었습니다.
(참조 : RISS 이용약관 및 개인정보처리방침)
신규회원으로 가입하여 이용 부탁 드리며, 추가 문의는 고객센터로 연락 바랍니다.
- 기존 아이디 재사용 불가
휴면계정 안내
RISS는 [표준개인정보 보호지침]에 따라 2년을 주기로 개인정보 수집·이용에 관하여 (재)동의를 받고 있으며, (재)동의를 하지 않을 경우, 휴면계정으로 전환됩니다.
(※ 휴면계정은 원문이용 및 복사/대출 서비스를 이용할 수 없습니다.)
휴면계정으로 전환된 후 1년간 회원정보 수집·이용에 대한 재동의를 하지 않을 경우, RISS에서 자동탈퇴 및 개인정보가 삭제처리 됩니다.
고객센터 1599-3122
ARS번호+1번(회원가입 및 정보수정)