미국 연방행정절차법상 정책의 일반적 설명과 재량준칙의 비교법 연구

The purpose of this study is to perform comparative law study methodology concerning the general statement policy in APA and the discretion directive in the korean legal system. The reason of choosing the general statement of policy and the discretion directive as comparative law study object dues to the similarity the definition and function of these. Addition to this reason, these comparative law studies enhance the legal interpretative theory and the legal system in the korea. The focus of comparative law study is to research the definition, function, and related problem of the judicial review of general statement of policy. In order to this researches, this article researches the related theory and case law and analysis these materials. The 1st chapter researches the provision of the general statement of policy in Administrative Procedure Act and analyzes the interpretation of that provision. Additionally, 1st chapter reviews the APA’s definition of the rule and the criteria of the classification of rules, analyzes the criteria, definition, and the function of general statement of policy. The 2nd chapter researches the issues related to the judicial review of general statement of policy and analyzes the federal court’s cases. These issues includes the classification criteria of rules, whether the general statement of policy meets the ripeness doctrine, and the scope of the judicial review. The 3rd chapter carries out the comparative legal study of the discretion directive in korean jurisprudence and the general statement of policy in U.S. administrative law system. Through these comparative law study of discretion directive and general statement of policy, this article induces the legal interpretation of the issues related to discretion directive that includes the definition, function, and judicial review of the discretion directive.