이행강제금 도입법에 대한 비판과 개선방안
Criticism and Improvements of Enforcement Fine Legislation
전극수(숭실대학교)
37권 2호, 313~339쪽
초록
이행강제금 제도가 1991. 5. 31 건축법에 처음으로 도입된 이래 현재까지 21개 법률에서 채택되었고 앞으로 더욱 입법이 증가될 것으로 보이는데, 이행강제금은 이행강제의 효과는 상당하나 과태료나 벌금보다 권익침해의 가능성이 더욱 높으므로 의무자의 권익침해를 최소화하고, 권익이 침해당하였을 때 신속하고 간편한 방법으로 구제받을 수 있는 장치가 마련되어야 할 것이다. 이행강제금은 비대체적 작위의무나 부작위의 의무의 불이행이 있을 때 이를 강제하기 위한 수단으로 사용되거나 다른 강제수단으로 적절하지 않는 경우에 보충적으로 선택되어야 할 것이고, 이행강제금을 부과함에 있어서는 상당한 기간을 정하여 시정명령을 하고, 그 기간안에 이행하지 아니하면 이행강제금을 부과한다는 내용의 계고를 하고, 그래도 이행하지 아니하면 이행강제금을 부과하는 절차를 밟아야 하고, 그렇게 함으로써 의무자에게 의무를 이행하지 아니하면 금전적인 제재를 받는다는 것을 일깨워 의무자 스스로 의무를 이행하게 할 수 있을 것이다. 이행강제금 도입법은 그 불복절차에 대하여 비송사건절차 또는 행정쟁송절차에 따르는 것으로 통일되어 있지 못한데, 비송사건절차에 의하는 것이 행정쟁송절차에 의하는 것보다 비용, 시간을 절약할 수 있는 등 권익구제의 효과가 더 크므로 비송사건절차에 따르는 것으로 통일 되어야 할 것이다.
Abstract
Enforcement fine has been introduced on May 31st 1991 with the legislation of the Construction Act and since has been adopted by 21 legislations. As enforcement fine notifies the obligor that financial pressure will be imposed until its obligation is fulfilled and yet the obligee has lesser chance of actual confrontation with the obligor, the adoption of enforcement fine in future legislations will increase. But due to possible repetitious financial pressure until the obligation is fulfilled, the influence on the obligor is greater than negligence fines and penalties and may increase the likelihood of infringement of the obligor’s rights. Thus a provision which is fast and easy to access needs to be in place to relieve the obligor in case of such infringement and to minimize the chances of such infringement. Enforcement fine should be used as a legal means if the duty to act is irreplaceable or the duty not to act is not performed. If the duty to act is replaceable, then the general practice should be to use execution by proxy, and the enforcement fine should be used as supplement if such execution by proxy is not adequate for the situation. Furthermore, rectification order should be given before the imposition of enforcement fine with reasonable time to cure which include a notice to the obligor that an enforcement fine will be imposed if rectification is not performed. The due process of enforcement fine which require the obligor’s failure to rectify before the imposition of enforcement fine should be satisfied. This process will allow the obligor to be aware that her inactions will cause financial restraint and in return such awareness will pressure the obligor to act. Also a procedure which enables the obligor to petition the amount of enforcement fine should be prepared in order to prevent disputes. When the enforcement fine was first adopted by the Construction Act, the appeal proceeding was a non litigation proceeding but has been amended to be administrative litigation proceeding. Currently a few Acts such as the Agricultural Act adopted the non litigation proceeding as the method of appeal for enforcement fine provisions. But if the enforcement fine has been imposed illegally, then the non litigation proceeding will save money and time compared to administrative litigation proceeding and has further advantage for the obligor since the obligor will not be depositing the enforcement fine until the decision of the court. Thus the appeal process for the enforcement fine should be amended to adopt non litigation proceeding than the administrative litigation proceeding.
- 발행기관:
- 한국공법학회
- 분류:
- 법학