사법부의 해석에 어긋나는 행정규칙의 번복입법 문제와 효율적 통제방안

When the illegality of a tax assessment under an administrative regulation becomes an issue in a lawsuit, the court may examine whether the administrative regulation is unconstitutional or illegal. However, since administrative rules cannot be a rule of law, the court will disregard the administrative rules and examine whether the tax assessment violates the higher law and then cancel it. However, the administration often enacts the same administrative rules that the courts have deemed unconstitutional or illegal in higher-level laws. This is the overriding of a court decision. The court ruling applies only to the case in question, and the administration claims its inherent administrative legislative power under the principle of separation of powers. In this case, there is a risk that the tax administration is not based on the law but on the ruling, and there is a problem of neutralising judicial judgements. Anyone seeking to challenge the invalidity of a reenacted decree will have to file a lawsuit on the specific dispute again. The executive branch's independent interpretation of the law is merely a delegated authority from Congress to enforce the law. To ensure that rights are not repeatedly violated, effective oversight and control measures are needed to prevent overriding. Judicial control is the primary way to supervise and control overriding. It is possible to consider abstract normative control of overruled decrees, expansion of the grounds for natural invalidity of disposals, and declaration of invalidity of administrative rules. On the other hand, judicial control is a reactive measure, so it is also necessary to proactively strengthen the review of administrative legislation by the National Assembly and the Ministry of Government Legislation. It is also necessary to proactively inform the Ministry of Government Legislation or the National Assembly when a court declares an enforcement decree invalid or an interpretative administrative rule illegal or unjustified.