셰브론원칙의 수정으로서의 중요문제원칙(Major Questions Doctrine) - 행정기관의 법해석에 대한 미연방대법원의 존중 변화 -

One of the most famous principles of law in administrative law of the U.S. introduced in Korea is probably the ‘Chevron Doctrine’, which has been considered the cornerstone of modern American administrative law and has played the largest role in field practices. Nevertheless, in Korea, it is hard to find an assessment that any of administrative laws seems to have been influenced by this doctrine or it has been applied directly to practice. Bringing the Chevron Doctrine to the discussion of administrative law in Korea would be the problem of limited delegation of legislative power. The major difference is that Chevron Doctrine is based on a reversed way of thinking in that, while the ambiguity of law means delegation in the doctrine, indefiniteness means blanket delegation in our case. In addition, it is difficult to readily accept the scrutiny in Step 2 which requires only rationality in the administration's interpretation of ambiguous writing in that it is a kind of ‘rationality scrutiny’ and the scrutiny may be conducted in mitigated manner any time. In fact, there has been concern in American academic circles about administrative control through respect for Chevron Doctrine and exceptional phenomena have sometimes taken place already where application of Chevron Doctrine has been excluded or limited. What has been recognized only as exceptional cases have now been named as ‘Major Question Doctrine’ and have established themselves as a law by many scholars due to King v. Burwell ruling. That is, exception for or revision to Chevron Doctrine that courts shall not respect administrative interpretations of economically and politically significant legislation has come to be accepted by the U.S. Supreme Court. MQD reminds us of the discussion on the congressional reservation and the theory of essentials in Korea. While there are criticisms in the U.S. as in Korea that it is not clear what the “important issue” is, this study tries to investigate the actual contents through MQD cases. Meanwhile, while the Supreme Court has continued to respect administration’s interpretation of interpretation regulations based on the Auer ruling, this principle has also been seriously reconsidered recently. Though this series of trend seems to run counter to the frame which administrative and judicial bodies have formed in modern administrative states, it emphasizes the responsibility of congress as legislative body and is an attempt of the court to reclaim the power of interpretation of the law from administrative institutions.