제헌헌법 예산 규정의 형성 과정과 의미

This paper analyzes the legislative process of budget-related articles in the First Constitution from the viewpoint of legal history. The current budget system which has its origin in the First Constitution is normatively supported by the existence of separate rules of the law and the budget. However, since they are different forms of norms, it is impossible to exclude the possibility of a discrepancy and it may be necessary to adjust the contradictions between the two. In other words, both the law and the budget are norms established by the resolution of the National Assembly, but there remain questions as to how to reconcile the disagreements that may arise between the two. Recently, the concept of the budget-law has been introduced in the amendment of the Constitution proposed by the President. It is not necessary to introduce the budget-law simply for the checks and balances between the government and the legislature. The budget-law can be a useless and unnecessary procedure if it is merely to decentralize the president's authority and strengthen the powers of the National Assembly. There is a reason why the people’s will and concern should be added here. This view should be more firmly maintained in future discussions on constitutional amendments and in detailed legislations on the implementation of budget-law. The examination of the history of the budget-related legislation may be secondary to legal and financial reviews of the effects of the budget. However, in the reform of the system, it was a lesson from history that it was not able to accurately set the direction without looking into the changes in the system. The distinction between the budget and the law can be said to be a transitional form between the age of the edict and the age of the law. From the perspective of legal history, the budget-related articles in the Constitution require that the budget should be established in the form of law.