지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
The subject of this article is the mediation in the administrative litigation. The comparative approach with laws of Germany, U.K. and France is adopted, and their implications to Korean law are explored. It is true that over 10% of administrative litigations in Korea is now resolved by judges' mediation. Nevertheless, the mediation in the administrative litigation is not legal but de facto device, and its legal effect or limit is not fully established, because of lack of clear legal bases. Therefore, such a mediation has not been sufficiently vitalized.
In fact, administrative law disputes could be settled by ADRs such as arbitration, settlement and so on other than mediation, or before taking legal action, or by the mediation outside litigation procedure. However, the reasons why this paper pays particular attention to the mediation in the administrative litigation are as follows. First, as legal principles like the rule of law, the protection of the third party's or public interests, and administrative procedure should be observed in the administrative law disputes unlike private law disputes, the judge needs to play the role of a mediator even though the parties agree about their disputes. Second, in general the parties try mediation after the commencement of proceedings, for there is time limit in the administrative litigation.
The comparative study with Germany, U.K. and France makes sure that there is a recent move to promote mediation in the three countries, although the extent of vitalization is different according to each country. The actual distinction between them is that while the judge's role as a mediator is affirmatively evaluated in Germany and France where the procedure is inqusitorial, the U .K.'s judge is not allowed to act as a mediator but can only provide guidelines because the procedure is adversarial in U.K.
In conclusion, comparative lessons learned from three experiences are as follows. First, it is suggested that the legal basis of mediation could be found in the judge's general powers such as the right to request elucidation, or recommendation of compromise. Second, the judge who does not preside over a particular case may become a mediator on the case like the German judge-mediator. Third, the mediation may be classified by the test of the effects of the agreement reached by mediation as ① agreement without legal binding force(a gentleman's agreement), ② agreement having the same legal effect as a contract ③ agreement having the same legal effect as a judicial decision, and the parties can choose among them.
In fact, administrative law disputes could be settled by ADRs such as arbitration, settlement and so on other than mediation, or before taking legal action, or by the mediation outside litigation procedure. However, the reasons why this paper pays particular attention to the mediation in the administrative litigation are as follows. First, as legal principles like the rule of law, the protection of the third party's or public interests, and administrative procedure should be observed in the administrative law disputes unlike private law disputes, the judge needs to play the role of a mediator even though the parties agree about their disputes. Second, in general the parties try mediation after the commencement of proceedings, for there is time limit in the administrative litigation.
The comparative study with Germany, U.K. and France makes sure that there is a recent move to promote mediation in the three countries, although the extent of vitalization is different according to each country. The actual distinction between them is that while the judge's role as a mediator is affirmatively evaluated in Germany and France where the procedure is inqusitorial, the U .K.'s judge is not allowed to act as a mediator but can only provide guidelines because the procedure is adversarial in U.K.
In conclusion, comparative lessons learned from three experiences are as follows. First, it is suggested that the legal basis of mediation could be found in the judge's general powers such as the right to request elucidation, or recommendation of compromise. Second, the judge who does not preside over a particular case may become a mediator on the case like the German judge-mediator. Third, the mediation may be classified by the test of the effects of the agreement reached by mediation as ① agreement without legal binding force(a gentleman's agreement), ② agreement having the same legal effect as a contract ③ agreement having the same legal effect as a judicial decision, and the parties can choose among them.
목차
Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 독일
Ⅲ. 영국
Ⅳ. 프랑스
Ⅴ. 시사점
참고문헌
〈Abstract〉
참고문헌 (40)
참고문헌 신청
1. [학술대회논문] - 강영호 / 2007 / 항고소송절차(3) / 행정소송법 개정자료집 Ⅰ 中 행정소송법 법관세미나 부분 : 527 ~
2. [단행본] - 김남진 / 2006 / 기부채납부담의 적법성 여부 / 법률신문
3. [학술지(정기간행물)] - 김남진 / 2006 / 행정소송의 화해 및 조정 - 그의 허용성을 중심으로 - / 고시연구 33 (3) : 15 ~
4. [단행본] - 김상일 / 2002 / 독일민사소송법의 주요개정내용 : 제1심절차를 중심으로. in: 민사소송 Ⅵ : 265 ~
6. [단행본] - 김유환 / 2002 / 법원에서의 행정사건에 대한 재판외분쟁해결제도. in: 청담 최송화 교수 화갑기념논문집 현대공법학의 과제 / 박영사 : 738 ~
2. [단행본] - 김남진 / 2006 / 기부채납부담의 적법성 여부 / 법률신문
3. [학술지(정기간행물)] - 김남진 / 2006 / 행정소송의 화해 및 조정 - 그의 허용성을 중심으로 - / 고시연구 33 (3) : 15 ~
4. [단행본] - 김상일 / 2002 / 독일민사소송법의 주요개정내용 : 제1심절차를 중심으로. in: 민사소송 Ⅵ : 265 ~
6. [단행본] - 김유환 / 2002 / 법원에서의 행정사건에 대한 재판외분쟁해결제도. in: 청담 최송화 교수 화갑기념논문집 현대공법학의 과제 / 박영사 : 738 ~
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
行政訴訟에서의 調停의 可能性과 限界
행정법연구
2007 .05
-
조정제도의 통합적 운용방안에 관한 연구
중재연구
2013 .01
-
中國의 法院調停에 관한 硏究
중국법연구
2010 .01
-
중국의 상사조정제도와 그 시사점에 관한 연구
무역상무연구
2015 .05
-
무역분쟁해결을 위한 한ㆍ중ㆍCPR 조정규칙비교에 관한 연구
관세학회지
2005 .05
-
유럽연합조정지침에 따른 유럽연합 각국의 조정관련 입법의 내용과 조정시스템의 변화에 대한 고찰
중앙법학
2017 .03
-
Chances to Adopt ADR in Administrative Disputes (Explanation on tax dispute instances)
동북아법연구
2016 .01
-
분쟁자의 상황적 특성하에서 조정합의 만족도에 대한 조정행위의 효과에 관한 연구
무역학회지
2003 .12
-
민사조정의 운영실태와 그 활성화방안에 관한 연구
중재연구
2007 .01
-
중국 인민조정법에 관한 연구
일감법학
2012 .01
-
상사분쟁에서 KCAB 조정의 활용방안 : AAA와의 비교를 중심으로
무역상무연구
2018 .02
-
조정제도의 활성화를 위한 법경제학적 분석
동북아법연구
2020 .01
-
조정인의 선발과 교육에 관한 연구
중앙법학
2014 .03
-
제4차 산업혁명 시대에 있어서 우리나라 조정산업(調停産業, Mediation Industry)의 진흥을 위한 연구 : 미국의 사법중재 및 조정서비스(JAMS)와 미국 중재협회(AAA)를 중심으로
법학연구
2018 .08
-
조정에 의한 무역분쟁의 해결방안 고찰
무역학회지
2018 .10
-
민간조정의 활성화를 위한 입법적 과제 : 독일과 일본의 법제도와 시사점을 중심으로
저스티스
2016 .12
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2012-363-003958237