동아시아 행정심판제도 비교연구

In this thesis I compared administrative review systems in east asian nations. The raison d'etre of this institution includes remedy of peoples' right, self control of administration and providing simple remedy process for people. Korea stresses the remedy function, while Japan and Taiwan stress keeping the legality of administrative decision through administrative review. Before you go to administrative court, you should appeal administrative agency first in Taiwan. But in Korea, Japan and China, you have the choice of going to the court or to administrative agency. While your case is dealt in an administrative review, you may know what the important point is. It will help you in the possible administrative litigation. Korea has tried to make the administrative review to be a quasi judiciary procedure, which means that the adjudication agency should be independent one and you can have hearing opportunity in the procedure. It helped more people bring their cases to administrative adjudication instead of administrative court. Other east asian nations referred Korean institution when they tried to improve their systems. But a few scholars are concerned that in stressing the judicial character of administrative review, you may lose other important value of it. Originally administrative review meant for administrative agency to have a second chance of evaluating its own decision. If the connection between decision making agency and reviewing agency is lost, the procedure will be just another form of judicial review. In a administrative procedure you may have opportunity to be heard. When you bring your case to administrative review, you should repeat same things. To have more opportunity to be heard is a good thing. But if you get no more through other procedure you may ask the necessity of such a procedure.