【作者】 李钟晚；

【导师】 陈金钊； 孟鸿志；

【作者基本信息】 山东大学 ， 法学理论， 2012， 博士

【摘要】 国民的权益可能会因不同的原因而受到侵害，为此法律设置了相应的救济制度。当这种侵害来自于政府的行政行为时，除了司法途径外，国民还可以通过行政复议的方式来寻求救济。行政复议制度的完善程度和实施效果反映着…个国家的法治化程度。韩国的行政复议制度从1951年的《诉愿法》建立起，至今已有半个多世纪。无论从行政复议机关的设置，还是具体制度的规定，韩国的行政复议制度逐渐系统和完善，并形成了自己的特色。即使如此，在一些较为前沿的具体制度上，韩同行政法学界的学者也在进行讨论，并寻求各种有效的方案，来改进和完善韩国现行的行政复议制度。本文在系统介绍韩国行政复议制度的基木内容的同时，主要就当前韩国行政法学者们所热衷讨论的一些具体制度进行了介绍利分析，提出了自己的观点或建议。也希望通过本文的写作，推动韩国和中国在行政复议制度研究，乃至整个行政法研究方而的深入交流，以更好地为完善两国的行政复议制度提供某些有益的参考或帮助。本文除导沦外，共四章的内容。导论部分简要介绍了本文研究的意义和目的、韩国行政复议制度在韩国和中国研究的基本现状、本文研究的重点和难点，以及本文的研究方法。其他四章重点介绍和论述了行政复议制度的一般性理论、具体的制度内容、比较研究和存在的问题及改进等。具体而言：第一章是对韩国行政复议制度的一般性考察，包括行政复议的涵义、主要特征、与行政诉讼和行政赔偿制度的辨析、双重法律属性、制度功能，以及韩国行政复议制度的历史沿革等。行政复议在韩国称为“行政审判”，鉴于中国学者的称呼习惯，木文则统一使用行政复议一词。尽管名称不同，而儿韩同学者又具体区分了实质意义和形式意义上的行政审判，们址二者指的都是同一种制度，即都是指当国民权益受到国家行政机关的行政行为侵害或者国民对行政行为不服吋，国民向有关行政机关寻求救济的一种制度。行政复议不同于诉愿和陈情等制度，尽管它们之间存在许多相同之处。行政复议与行政诉讼和行政损害赔偿制度也存在诸多不同，虽然它们邢具有为国民权益提供救济和保护的功能。行政复议制度具有双重法律属性：行政行为属性和作为权利救济程序的属性。但其根本属性仍为行政性，也即仍属于行政仃为的范畴。韩国行政复议制度的功能也主要包括实现对国民权益提供救济和行政机关自我监督和约束。韩国现行的《行政复议法》肇始于1951年的《诉愿法》,在经历了数次修改后,已经形成了较为健全或完善的行政复议制度。第二章主要对韩国行政复议机关的设置以及具体的制度内容进行了较为详细地阐述。行政复议机构的设置是行政复议职能专业化和专门化的体现。在机构设置上,韩国行政复议实行的是议决机关和裁决机关相分离的制度。其中,行政复议委员会负责案件的议决,然后由裁决厅根据行政复议委员会的议决作出最终的裁决。国务总理行政复议委员会负责涉及中央行政机关及负责人的行政复议案件,各地方则分别设有市、道行政复议委员会负责涉及地方行政机关及负责人的行政复议案件。除此之外,根据其他法律规定还设有一些特别行政复议委员会,如国税复议院、特许复议院和土地征用委员会等。一般而言,行政复议申请人向原处分机关提出行政复议申请后,被申请人写出自己的意见,然后送交行政复议委员会进行议决,最后由原处分机关的上级行政机关(或中央行政机关自己)根据行政复议委员会的议决结果作出最终的裁决。这是韩国行政复议法所规定的行政复议的基本程序。当然,在这一过程中还存在教示制度、回避制度和证据调取制度等。除了上面提到的行政复议基本制度外,韩国学者还就行政复议中不告不理原则、禁止步利益变更原则,以及执行不停止制度等进行了讨论。本文也重点论述了这些原则和制度,并提出了自已的观点和建议。韩国《诉愿法》上并没有规定不告不理原则。随着韩国行政复议实践的发展,在是否遵循不告小理原则这一问题上出项了积极说和消极说两种观点。后来的《行政复议法》上正式确立了不告不理原则,即行政复议委员会和裁决厅对成为复议请求对象的处分或不作为以外的情况不能进行议决和裁决。而裁决决机关不得作出与作为复议请求对象的处分相比,对请求人更为小利的裁决。这是禁止不利益变更在韩国行政复议法上的体现。此外,对于行政复议中的执行不停止制度本文也进行了相应的论述,并提出了自己的主张。第三章的内容是行政复议制度的比较研究。在这一章中,本文对英美法系和大陆法系的主要代表国家的行政复议制度进行了考察。在总结其各自的特色基础上,本文提出了各国行政复议制度对韩国行政复议制度的改进可能的借鉴或启示。如英美法系中对正当程序的强调和行政裁判所制度都可以对韩国行政复议制度的完善提供有益启示。我们在建立程序性制度的同时，也要确立程序自身的价值.对程序正义价值的强调可以在很大程度上弥补具体制度设计的缺陷。大陆法系中的一些具体的行政复议制度也可以为韩国行政复议制度的改进提供借鉴。最后,本章考察了中国的行政复议制度,并简要比较了两国的行政复议制度所存在的特点,以及今后的改进方向。第四章则在前面几章内容论述的基础上,总结并指出了韩国行政复议制度存在的问题,包括在行政复议机关设置方面和具体行政复议制度中所存在的问题。韩国在行政复议机关的设置上所采取的议决机关和裁决机关相分离的作法是有缺陷的.行政复议委员会的非常设化也影响到案件的公正、有效审理和议决。此外,特别行政复议机关的设置也存在相应问题,如特殊性和专门性的缺乏等。对此,可考虑将议决机关和裁决机关相合并,或者在维持二者分离的基础上强化其关系,以及将行政复议委员会机关常设化等。行政复议具体制度方而也存在许多问题,如过于复杂多样的特别行政复议制度增加了行政复议的实施成术,义务履行裁决缺乏相应的制度保障等。对此，可简化或统一特别行政复议制度、建立直接处分或间接强制制度来保障义务履行裁决的执行等。此外,本文还就建立和完善行政复议再议制度、行政复议和解和调解制度等提出了自己的观点和建议。例如,行政复议和解是双方当事人相互交涉的合意过程,可从和解程序的启动、进行和终结三个阶段来设计该制度。而面对行政复议调解制度的采用,则可从调解的原则、适用范围、调解的主体育组织模式等方面进行设计和论述。更多还原

【Abstract】 The national’s rights and interests may be aggrieved due to many different reasons. So some remedy systems are set up in the law. When the aggression comes from the government’s administrative act, the national can seek remedy through administrative review besides judicial way. The perfection degree and carryout effect of administrative review system reflect one country’s degree of rule of law. Korean administrative review system was set up from Administrative Appeal Act in1951, half a century has gone now. Korean administrative review system has been systematic and perfect gradually no matter of the set-up of administrative review organs or concrete system designs, and shape characteristic itself. Even so, the Korean scholars major in administrative law still discuss about some concrete systems and seek any kinds of effective programs to better and perfect Korean current administrative review system. The basic contents of Korean administrative system is introduced systematically in the article, meanwhile some concrete systems discussed warmly by Korean scholars major in administrative law are still introduced and analyzed, and also put forward my viewpoints or advises. We also propel the exchange of the study of Korean and Chinese administrative review, even the study of administrative law by the write of this article, in order to supply some helpful reference to perfect both countries’ administrative review system.There are four chapters besides introductory theory. The purpose of the article and the current study about Korean administrative review system in Korea and China are introduced in the part of introductory theory, as so as the emphasis and difficult points and the research methods of the article. The other four chapters introduce the general theories of Korean administrative review system, concrete contents of the systems, compared study and the problems of the systems and perfection, etc. In this regard:Chapter One is a general discussion about Korean administrative review system. which contains the meaning of administrative review, legal attributes, system function, fundamental principle, the relation with administrative sue and administrative compensation, and historical origins of Korean administrative review system. Administrative review is called administrative trial. In the consideration of Chinese scholars, administrative review is used in the article. Although it has different names, both are the same svstem that the nationals ask for remedy to some administrative organ when their rights and interests are aggrieved or they refuse to obey administrative acts. Therefore, administrative review system has double attributes: administrative act and as a remedy procedure to rights. The function of Korean administrative review mainly contains to offer remedy to the nationals’rights and interests and to supervise and constrain the administrative organs themselves. Administrative review need to obey some principles. The article discussed the two principles of no condemnation without accusation and the principle of prohibiting alteration for interests. There are many differences between administrative review and administrative sue and administrative compensation, although they all have the function of offering remedy and protection to the nationals’rights and interests. Korean current Administrative Review Law originates from Administrative Appeal Act in1951, which already has gone through amendments many times and the administrative review system has been built perfectly.Chapter Two mainly states the set-up of Korean administrative review organs and the concrete system contents in more details. Korean administrative review separates discussion organ and verdict organ in the set-up of organs. Administrative review committee is in charge of the discussion of the case. Then the verdict organ makes the final verdict according to the discussion made by the administrative review committee. Prime minister administrative review committee is in charge of the administrative review case relating to the central administrative organs and their principals. The city or town administrative review committees are in charge of the local administrative review cases. Besides, there are many other special administrative review committees according to other laws, such as national tax review faculty, special permission review faculty and land acquisition committee, etc. Generally speaking, the proposer put forward the administrative review application to the former agency that made the administrative action. The respondent writes his views, then hand over the administrative review committee to discuss. Finally, the former agency’s higher agency or the central administrative agency itself makes the final verdict according to the discussion decision made by the administrative review committee. That’s the fundamental administrative review procedure stipulated by Korean Administrative Review Law. Of course, there are some other systems in the procedure, such as informing system, challenge system and gathering evidence system.Besides the fundamental administrative review systems mentioned above, the Korean scholars still discuss the compromising and mediating system, not stopping enforcement system and provisional injunction system in the process of administrative review. Those systems are discussed mainly in the article, and we raise some opinions and advices. Administrative review compromising is a process that both of the parties negotiate each other and reach a consensus. The system can be devised from three stages, which contain starting, going-on and ending-up. Administrative review mediation system can be devised and discussed from the sides of mediation principles, range of application, mediation bodies and organization patterns. Moreover, not stopping enforcement system and provisional system in the process of administrative review are discussed relatively in the article and put forward my views.Chapter Three is compared study about administrative review systems. In this chapter, the article introduced the administrative review system of main countries of both Anglo-American legal system and civil law system. In the basis of summing up the respective characteristics, we put forward some possible experiences or inspirations that the administrative review systems of various countries can offer to Korean administrative review system. Such as. the emphasis on due process in Anglo-American legal system and administrative tribunal system may offer some helpful inspirations to perfect Korean administrative review system. While we set up procedural systems, we should also establish the value of procedure itself. The emphasis on procedural justice can make up the defects of concrete system device to a great degree. Some concrete administrative review systems in civil law system can also offer experiences to better Korean administrative review system. Finally, we introduced Chinese administrative review system and compared the features of the two countries’administrative review system, and the direction to better.Chapter Four summarized and pointed out the problems in Korean administrative review system basis on the several chapters ahead, which contain the problems in the set-up of administrative review organs and the concrete administrative review systems. It is defective that discussion organs and verdict organs are separated in the set-up of administrative review organs. It also influenced the just and effective trial and discussion of the cases that administrative review committee is nonpermanent. Besides. there are many problems in the set-up of special administrative review committee, such as lacking of particularity and technicality. We can consider to merger the discussion organs and verdict organs, or strengthen their relationships on the basis of keeping the separation, and to make the administrative review committee permanent. There are also many problems in concrete administrative review systems, such as too complicated special administrative review system increase the cost to carry out the administrative review, and the obligation-performing verdicts are lack of relevant systems to guarantee. In order to solve those problems, we can simplify or unify the special administrative review systems, and establish direct disposition system or indirect force system to guarantee the enforcement of the obligation-performance verdicts. In addition, we also put forward our opinions and advices about how to establish and perfect the administrative review reconsideration system.更多还原