행정재판의 구조와 문제점 - 감리교회의 재판제도를 중심으로- = The structure and problems of the Administrative trial - focused on the trial system of the Methodist Church

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

In the Christian Doctrine Doctrine and the Constitution of Chapter 6, the Methodist trial system is defined as a general trial (narrow trial) and an administrative trial. In the case of the Presbyterian Church, It is only recently that the administrative trial system has been adopted, and the administrative trial system of the Methodist Church, as provided for in Article 1 (Purpose) of the Doctrine and Covenantal Administrative Trial Act, relieves the violation of the rights of each member of the Assembly, And to carry out the role of properly erecting the Methodist Church while raising the proper administration of the administration.46)
Problems of the Administrative Court system of the Methodist Church include (1) a lack of consistency in the content and system of the law itself and an abstract language, (2) a small number of judges among a large number of judges composed of 7 to 14 members, ④ The principle that the principle of the majority is transformed into a ruling based on political interests. ④ Unlike the judiciary, the judges of each class are strongly influenced by influential people such as the chairman of the parliament. And (5) a low rate of conciliation settlement in the adjustment transfer system.
(1) the systemization and clarification of Doctrine and Manual regulations, (2) the improvement of the method of constitution of the trial committee and the majority vote, (3) the strengthening of the expertise of the judges, (4) the independence of the trial committee, And so on.
On the other hand, the Special Committee on the Presbyterian Church of the United Methodist Church passed the administrative court proceedings and sentenced the election to the election to the presidential election of the President on September 3, 2013. The Court of Appeals for the Supreme Court of the General Assembly cited the dismissal of the above ruling on the grounds that there was a serious deficiency in the wrongful choice of the plaintiffs' There is one case.