독일 연방헌법재판소 헌법판례에 나타난 체계적합성 헌법해석의 방법

It should be recognized that there is a distance between the search for interpretation results that fit the constitutional system and the interpretation of the Constitution and the situation in which the lower level law violates the Constitution and excludes it. In particular, if the interpretation of the constitution is appropriate to the constitutional system based on the superiority of the Constitution, there is no difference in the fact that the interpretation result is unconstitutional. The judgment of some kind of constitution based on the systematic nature of the law can be regarded as originally recognized by the ordinary court of justice when the premise of the constitution is supreme. It is not wrong to say that the interpretation aiming at the constitutional idea has already been recognized in the Constitutional Court ruling. The interpretation aiming at the constitutional idea is recognized by the approval of the supremacy of the Constitution, and it must be recognized that it is also distinguished from the constitutional interpretation of the consultation accompanying the judgment of constitutionality. If appropriate interpretation of the Constitutional system is possible, it should be chosen and avoiding judging the law as unconstitutional. For this reason, it is required that both the interpretation of the constitutional system and the interpretation that it is inadequate to the constitutional system are possible, and the interpretation appropriate to the constitutional system is adopted. In terms of marginality setting, it is said that it is bound to the purpose of the law, which is understood to be the punishment of the court falling beyond the intention of the legislator. In other words, this can be attributed to the fact that the court, which goes beyond the intentions of the legislator, is understood as punishment for falling into legislation, and that it should not go beyond the boundaries of the interpretation afterwards. This study presented some cases of the Constitutional interpretation of the Constitutional Court of the Federal Republic of Germany, which is appropriate for the constitutional system of the consultation, but I was impressed by the interpretation of our Constitution that if we followed this constitutionally, we will know that it is irrational. In fact, conflicts exist within the Constitutional Court and it is often seen that minority opinions are often added. Of course, the possibility that there may be bias in the choice of precedent can not be denied, but it is true that the limit of the interpretation suitable to the system of the constitution is a big dispute in academia. The German precedent examined here is limited in the interpretation of the Constitution. In particular, It is suggested that the Constitutional Court of the Federal Constitutional Court only states that the Constitutional Court is aware of the limitations of legislation. Of course, there is no quarrel on the general theory of marginalization, but it is doubtful whether the limit is exceeded, and the fact that the court opinion and minority opinion are conflicting suggests that this marginalization does not function sufficiently.