일본의 최근(2018년~2020년) 행정판례 동향

This paper describes notable administrative precedents sentenced in Japan from 2018 to 2020. These descriptions consist of an outline of case, summary of the judgment, brief comment, comparable precedents in Korea or implications for Korea. The themes of ten cases presented were classified into those related to administrative dispute, local government law, and national compensation. They were not limited to the Supreme Court case, but instead, the lower court cases were included if necessary. Korea’s comparable precedents or implications for Korea focused on review of similar cases, and if there were no appropriate existing precedents, feasible future issues were briefly discussed. Specifically, the cases related to administrative dispute included the those about ① cancellation request for disposition accepting the Ishiki Dam business, ② the legality of anonymous appeal lawsuit requiring confirmation of non-existence of public obligations aiming prevention of disadvantageous disposition, and ③ necessity for medical treatment of atomic bomb diseases. Those related to local government law included ① illegal intervention of state pursuant to Local Autonomy Act § 251.5, ② legality of the resolution to abandon bonds, and ③ cases where the prohibition of dissolution of the government's old office and the related expenditure of public money were not accepted. Those related to national compensation included ① A case in which a claim toward the state for damages of citizen victims in South Sea War, ② A case in which non-acceptance or rejection of the ethics examination request application was determined to be illegal under the National Compensation Act, ③ A case in which a request for national compensation has been accepted for the disposition of an accompanying staff, against the decision of temporary ban, to visiting death penalty convicted prisoner, and ④ A case in which the refusal to re-employment due to violating the order of standing and singing was determined to have no illegal composition. It is remarkable that, despite the subject of Japan’s “latest” administrative precedents, there remains still the aftereffects of Second World War such as relocation of Futenma airport, treatment of air bomb disease, claim toward the state for damages of citizen victims in South Sea War, and with the broad perspective, and those related to Japanese Ground Self Defense Force and order of standing and singing. The reason to review Japanese precedents are to refer to their implications. Since there are many common denominators between the two countries, there are many points to be referred in terms of the standards and methods of judicial review, though there are differences in rules. It is also necessary to take preemptive and precautionary measures to prevent the disputes found in Japanese precedents. For the purpose, it is necessary to supplement the current laws and regulations by analyzing the previous cases experienced in Japan, which is recommended as a subject for future studies.