The Journal of the Convergence on Culture Technology (문화기술의 융합)

The International Promotion Agency of Culture Technology (국제문화기술진흥원)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Government Commission Studies Exclusion Rules to Improve Fairness

공정성 강화를 위한 정부 위원회의 제척 규정 비교 연구

  • JaeHoon LEE (Dept. of Law, Sungshin Women's Univ)
  • 이재훈 (성신여자대학교 법학부)
  • Received : 2024.05.12
  • Accepted : 2024.06.16
  • Published : 2024.07.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The laws and regulations governing the operation of government committees in Korea provide for a system called exclusion. Exclusion is a system that excludes a member of a committee from deliberating or voting on a matter or agenda without having to go through a special procedure before deliberating or voting on the matter or agenda. This is because exclusion of a member from deliberation and voting is not only essential for the protection of the interests of the parties to the issue or matter and the peaceful resolution of disputes, but is also a very important value for the trust in the fairness of the process. However, in practice, it is not easy to determine that a member who has a reason for disqualification is naturally incapable of executing the duties of the matter or agenda just because he or she has a reason for disqualification. Prior to the overhaul of the disqualification rules for committee members in the statutes, it is necessary to eliminate the disqualification rules that are virtually dead in advance or to revise the rules that are difficult to determine without interpretation, contrary to the intention of the disqualification rules that are codified in the law. Therefore, this study analyzed the disqualification rules of nine committees in the domestic statutes (laws and enforcement regulations) and categorized the disqualification rules. We hope to contribute to the preparation of future legislative proposals to improve the rules on the exclusion of commissioner.

우리나라 정부의 각 위원회 운영 근거 법령에는 제척(除斥)이라는 제도를 운영한다. 제척은 해당 위원회의 위원이 사안이나 안건을 심의 또는 의결하기 전, 특별한 절차를 거칠 필요 없이 공정성을 해칠 수 있는 사유만으로 당연히 당해 사안이나 안건의 심의 또는 의결을 할 수 없도록 배제하는 제도이다. 심의 및 의결에 대한 위원의 제척은 해당 안건이나 사안의 당사자의 이익 보호와 분쟁의 평화적 해결을 위해서도 필수적으로 요구될 뿐만 아니라 앞선 공정이라는 신뢰를 위해서도 매우 중요한 가치이기 때문이다. 그러나 제척 사유가 있는 위원에 대해 실무적으로 제척 원인이 있다는 사유만으로 당연히 당해 사안이나 안건의 직무집행을 할 수 없다고 판단하는 것이 쉽지 않다. 사실상 현실에 맞지 않는 사문화(死文化)된 제척 규정은 삭제하고 현재의 이해충돌 쟁점에 맞게 법률 개정 등이 시급히 필요한 시점이다. 특히, 제척 규정을 해석하여 제척 여부에 해당하는지를 결정하는 구조 또한 개선되어야 한다. 따라서 해당 연구에서는 국내 법령상의 9개 위원회를 선정하여 제척 규정을 분석하고, 제척 규정을 카테고리화하였다. 이 분석을 통해 위원회의 위원의 제척 규정에 대한 차후 입법 개선안 등을 마련하는데 기여하고자 한다.

Keywords

References

  1. W. Y. Jon, "Reexamination of Grounds for Judicial Recusal", Justice of Korean Society of Law, Vol. 173, pp.67-106, Aug 2019. https://doi.org/10.29305/tj.2019.08.173.67 
  2. H. Y. Kim, "Disqualification and Recusal of Constitutional Court Justice", Justice of Korean Society of Law, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp.102-127, Oct 2014. 
  3. S. H. Dong and H. R. Ahn, "A Comparative Analysis of Fact-Checking News Fairness in South Korean Broadcasting", The Journal of the Convergence on Culture Technology(JCCT), Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 495-508, May 2023. http://dx.doi.org/10.17703/JCCT.2023.9.3.495 
  4. M. J. Kwon and K. J. JEONG, "A Case Study of Scientific Culture Programs of Government-Funded Research Institutions in Science and Technology; Focusing on Institutions Located in Daedeok Innopolis", The Journal of the Convergence on Culture Technology(JCCT), Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 317-326, Feb 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.17703/JCCT.2021.7.1..317 
  5. Zhi-Xiao Ye, M. C. Choi and S. J. Kim, "A Study on the Intervention of Property Management Enterprises in Community Governance Model - Based on Property Management of Public Product in Attribute Perspective -", International Journal of Advanced Culture Technology (IJACT), Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 84-89, Sep 2020. https://doi.org/10.17703/IJACT.2020.8.3.84 
  6. J. C. Hah, "Vitalization of Judicial Disqual ification through Positive Consideration on Whether Judge's Impartiality might reasonably be Questioned", Seoul Law Review Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 631-660, Feb 2015. 
  7. S. T. Kim, "A Study on the Challenge, and Avoidance System of Enforcement Officers in Civil Execution", The Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences 21, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 1067-1077, Jun 2023. http://dx.doi.org/10.22143/HSS21.14.3.74 
  8. J. C. Park, "Management of "Conflict of Interests" Arising from Additional Job Holdings of the National Assemblymen: Reform Directions and Issues", Korean Association for Policy Sciences, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 1-23, Sep 2005. 
  9. D. R. Lee, "Ausschluss von Richtern und Mitberechtigter", Chung-Ang Law Review, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 251-274, Sep 2014. 
  10. H. W. Cho, "Eine rechtsvergleichende Unters uchung uber Ausschliessungsgrund von Richtern in Zusammenhang mit dem Bereich der Verwandtschaft und Schwagerschaft", The Law Research Institute of HongIk University, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 523-549, Oct 2012.