民事事件에 있어서 公法的 影響과 判例의 發展方向

In modern society where the number of cases involving mixed law between Public Law and Private Law is increasing, the court should fully consider this point. Since Public laws and jurisprudence in this case concern SOIL ENVIRONMENT CONSERVATION ACT, FRAMEWORK ACT ON ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY, WASTES CONTROL ACT, the court should have balanced or considerable handling of the review of the Public Law with the review of the Private Law. There are subtle differences between Public Law and Private Law. Even though Civil Law require responsibility, there are occasions where Public Law does not. In order to propose a solution to improve the judgment of the court, SOIL ENVIRONMENT CONSERVATION ACT, FRAMEWORK ACT ON ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY, WASTES CONTROL ACT were examined through the review of the Environmental Law, and Administrative Law including the principle of proportionality. Furthermore, we have suggested that it is possible to solve it more effectively by examining the police responsibility in Police Law in another way. The Supreme Court focused too much on the application of Civil Law, and as a result, it failed to comprehensively examine the Mixed Law. The opposition opinion of the Supreme Court also has the same fundamental problems that Majority Opinions in the supreme court have. If the public law and the private law are mixed together like this case, it is helpful to examine both law in order to find the answer to a fair ruling. Applying the legal method of public law makes it easier and more clear to find the scope of responsibility and responsibility. In consideration of this, it is possible to confirm the direction of the judgment, and to comprehensively make a legitimate and valid judgment. In the end, the court needs to change the paradigm of application as a macro and comprehensive solution in the case of mixed public and private law through more considering Public Law and balancing this and Private Law.