장애인 활동지원에 관한 헌법적 고찰 ― 수급권 제한에 관한 헌법재판소와 법원의 판단을 중심으로 ―

Discussions on support for disabled people's activities began after 2000, influenced by the disabled people's movement. Since 2000, the disabled people's movement has mainly criticized not only the guarantee of the rights of the disabled, but also the overall rights system based on 'non-disabled people'. At this time, the right of the disabled to live a decent human life was not substantially limited by the acquisition of specific existing rights. When rights were not guaranteed, new rights were devised. Among these, the ‘right to care’ called for a change in social awareness of the need to support activities for the disabled. ‘Contents of activity support’ are things that for disabled people go beyond the bare minimum of survival and are the basis of their basic freedom and right to live a humane life. Therefore, ‘activity support’ must be guaranteed as a ‘right.’ In this respect, the Constitutional Court's decision that the text of Article 5, Paragraph 2 of the Act on Activities of Persons with Disabilities, which limits the options for activity support benefits for persons with disabilities, is unconstitutional has special significance. Through its decision, the Constitutional Court acknowledged that the legislator has a responsibility to rationally formulate the disability activity support system on the premise that it is a national project related to the disabled that has a significant impact on realizing the dignity of the disabled, and then to address the needs and situations of the disabled. Pointing out the current problems of operating a rigid system without taking into account the need for rational system improvement at the national level considering the interdependence of basic rights, the individual's right to choose was confirmed as a substantive right to guarantee human dignity and value. The disability activity support system is a core system to guarantee the basic rights of the disabled, such as the right to care, the right to a humane life, the right to life, the right to self-determination, and the right to pursue happiness, so it is simple but should be supported ‘as much as necessary for those who need it.’ We must not forget the clear proposition.