대통령의 법률안거부권에 대한 고찰 ― 미국 제도와의 비교를 중심으로 ―

The Presidential Veto is a system defined by the Constitution in order to prevent the abuse of powers that may arise when the National Assembly monopolizes the legislative power. However, in spite of the necessity or advantages of the President's power to veto the bill, if the President abuses it, a serious violation of the legislative power of the National Assembly may arise. The Presidential Veto implies a risk that it will undermine the principle of separation of powers and threaten parliamentarianism by impeding the exercise of reasonable legislative power by the National Assembly. In particular, given the fact that in many respects the administrative power is strengthened relative to legislative power, it is more important that the legislative power of National Assembly be subject to considerable constraints by the president. This study examines the current status and significance of the presidential veto, the practical requirements and procedural requirements for the President to veto the legislation, and the post procedures by the Congress in the US Constitution, and then, looks for ways to improve the veto right of the President in the Korean Constitution so that it can be properly exercised in accordance with the purpose of the introduction. The presidential veto in the Korean Constitution is derived from the US Constitution. The presidential veto in the US Constitution has served as an important means to defend the constitution and democracy and to improve the quality of law by checking abuse of legislative power. Therefore, it is important to make a judgement on the constitutional significance of the presidential veto in the contemporary situation of Korea by comparing the presidential veto system of Korea and the US, and to seek ways to improve it. In order to prevent the presidential veto from being abused, it is desirable to prescribe in the Constitution the just cause for the President to veto. Regarding the procedure, it is necessary to consider to explicitly stipulate in the Constitution the deliberation of the State Council and the proposal of the Prime Minister before the President vetoes. Also, if the President has vetoed a bill, it should be considered that the Constitution stipulates that National Assembly should prescribe the bill as an agenda within a certain time limit. If the President vetoes the bill, it is also necessary to consider that the Constitution should prescribe the bill as an agenda within a certain deadline. Finally, it is desirable to clearly state the effect of the bill in the Constitution if the term of the National Assembly is terminated within 15 days after the bill is transferred to the government, but the President does not sign it and does not veto the bill.