지방자치단체 사무의 대행에 대한 조례 제정 가능성 = Possibility of Enacting a Municipal Ordinance on Agency System in Municipal Government Affairs

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Generally, the contracting-out administrative affairs to the private sector is discussed as meaning that the administrative agency entrusted the administrative affairs granted by the law and regulations to the private sector instead of performing them, so that the private sector can perform them in its name and under its responsibilities. In relation to the affairs of municipal governments, Article 104 (3) of the Local Autonomy Act is understood as the general basis for the contracting-out. On the other hand, in the case of administrative affairs, the term agency system is used in many actual laws, but the regulatory system and the regulatory method are different for each legislative example, and the concept is not clearly established theoretically. However, on the premise of recognizing the concept of the agency system separated from the contracting-out, the theoretical view seems to be roughly consistent with the fact that the authority of the administrative agency is not transferred to the private sector unlike the contracting-out. In this regard, the concept of the agency system is understood to be the same purpose in the legislative practice of the Ministry of Government Legislation and the National Assembly, which can be summarized as that the head of the municipal government has the private sector to carry out the affairs belonging to the authority, but the name, authority and responsibility of the affairs are not transferred. Considering that the main issue of this paper is a legislative discussion related to whether the contents about the agency system of some of the affairs belonging to the authority of the head of the municipal government can be enacted in the municipal ordinance based on Article 104 (3) of the Local Autonomy Act, the attitude of the legislative practice is meaningful as a premise of discussion.
On the other hand, common view has accepted essence of the municipal system as the Institutional Guarantee, understanding “the municipal system as a kind of historical and traditional system should not be abolished or made meaningless by legislation”. However, the essence of the municipal system cannot be understood only by the traditional view above, considering the difference in background from Germany where Institutional Guarantee was discussed and the democratic legitimacy of the municipal system The value of local autonomy guaranteed by the Constitution is to be in the modern implementation of the principle of democracy and separation of powers and in strengthening the guarantee of the basic rights of residents. This understanding about the municipal system should be fully considered in the interpretation of the laws related to the municipal system and the judgment of the scope of the municipal ordinance.
The existing opinion presentation case of the Ministry of Government Legislation judges that there is no legal basis for agency system in municipal government affairs. And thus it judges that the municipal government is not able to enact a municipal ordinance on agency system in municipal government affairs. But from the perspective discussed above, the existing opinion presentation case is an excessive formal logic that is biased only to the texts of the law without considering the actual differences between the contracting-out and the agency system. Furthermore, it is not consistent with the legislative purpose that allows municipal government affairs to carry out by contracting-out and legal principles related to the exercising of authority of administrative agencies.
However, the discussion above does not mean that it is possible to enact municipal ordinances on the agency of all administrative affairs of municipal governments. In this paper argues that article 104 (3) of the Local Autonomy Act shall be considered as the general basis of the municipal ordinance enactment authority for the agency of municipal governments affairs, and that it is also possible to enact municipal ordinances ...

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 김영진, "현행 위임･위탁 관련 제도의 법적 명확성 확보 방안에 대한 고찰" 2013
• 2 허영, "헌법이론과 헌법" 박영사 2017
• 3 이경운, "행정판례평선" 박영사 2016
• 4 장경원, "행정판례와 공익" 박영사 2018
• 5 신상민, "행정사무의 민간위탁에 관한 행정법적 고찰" 법학연구소 32 : 81-109, 2014
• 6 이상수, "행정사무의 대행에 관한 행정법적 고찰" 서울시립대학교 법학연구소 24 (24): 255-292, 2017
• 7 홍정선, "행정법원론(하)" 박영사 2018
• 8 박종수, "행정법신론 제15판" 박영사 2011
• 9 조성규, "행정법령의 해석과 지방자치권" 행정법이론실무학회 (32) : 1-29, 2012
• 10 한견우, "행정법(Ⅰ)" 홍문사 1997
• 11 김동희, "행정법(Ⅰ)" 박영사 2011
• 12 최철호, "행정권한의 민간위탁에 관한 법적기준의 설정과 한계" 법학연구소 20 : 267-296, 2008
• 13 박신, "행정권한의 대행에 관한 고찰" 30 (30): 2001
• 14 허영, "한국헌법론" 박영사 2018
• 15 조성규, "지방자치제도에 있어 사법권의 의의와 역할 ― 대법원 판례의 평가를 중심으로 ―" 행정법이론실무학회 (34) : 287-315, 2012
• 16 김재호, "지방자치의 헌법적 보장과 조례제정" 한국지방자치법학회 6 (6): 301-324, 2006
• 17 오동석, "지방자치의 제도적 보장론 비판" 29 (29): 2000
• 18 김명식, "지방자치의 본질과 자치입법권에 관한 재고찰" 한국비교공법학회 16 (16): 69-94, 2015
• 19 홍정선, "지방자치법상 민간위탁의 개념- 행정실무상 유사개념과의 비교를 중심으로 -" 한국지방자치법학회 13 (13): 85-107, 2013
• 20 행정자치부, "지방자치단체 사무의 민간위탁 실무편람"
• 21 최윤영, "지방자치단체 사무 민간위탁의 법적 근거" 한국지방자치법학회 14 (14): 377-407, 2014
• 22 조성규, "지방의회에 의한 인사청문회 도입의 법적 문제" 행정법이론실무학회 (42) : 189-215, 2015
• 23 최계영, "지방공기업의 법적 쟁점과 과제 : 공법적 통제의 문제를 중심으로" 법학연구소 8 (8): 70-90, 2015
• 24 조성규, "조례의 활성화를 위한 국가의 역할과 과제" 한국공법학회 48 (48): 51-77, 2020
• 25 조연팔, "조례의 위법성 판단기준에 관한 연구 - 일본 徳島市公安条例사건 이후의 판례분석과 그 시사점을 중심으로 -" 법학연구소 24 (24): 117-152, 2019
• 26 최우용, "자치입법권의 현실 및 과제 - 자치입법권 확충 방안을 중심으로 -" 사단법인 한국국가법학회 11 (11): 29-62, 2015
• 27 한승훈, "위임조례의 법체계상의 효력" 한국지방자치법학회 20 (20): 71-101, 2020
• 28 국회 법제실, "법제이론과 실제" 2019
• 29 법제처, "법령 입안･심사 기준"
• 30 홍정선, "민간위탁의 법리와 행정실무" 박영사 2015
• 31 최정일, "민간업체에 의한 불법 주‧정차 자동차 견인에 따라 발생하는 법률관계에 관한 행정법적 고찰 - 독일의 경우를 중심으로 -" 한국경찰법학회 13 (13): 27-60, 2015
• 32 김종천, "대행제도의 법리적인 분석을 통한 법제 개선방안 연구" 한국법제연구원 2017
• 33 박균성, "다단계 행정결정" 1999
• 34 "국회 의안정보시스템"
• 35 박균성, "行政法論(下)" 박영사 2018
• 36 박윤흔, "最新行政法講義(上)" 박영사 2011
• 37 홍정선, "新지방자치법" 박영사 2018
• 38 권영성, "憲法學原論" 법문사 2011
• 39 이상철, "委任･委託･代理･代行" 2000
• 40 정하중, "多段階行政行爲에 있어서 事前決定과 部分許可의 意味" 1 : 1999
• 41 조성규, "地方自治制의 憲法的 保障의 意味" 30 (30): 2001
• 42 김남진, "原子爐施設敷地事前承認과 法的 問題" 4 (4): 1999
• 43 박균성, "公務受託者의 法的 地位와 損害賠償責任" 한국행정판례연구회 15 (15): 151-187, 2010