최근(2022-2023) 일본 행정법판례의 동향과 검토

This paper shows important judgments under Japanese administrative law for a year from November 2022 to the end of October 2023. First judgment is a judgment on administrative discretion in administrative actions. This is a judgment on drunk driving of public school teachers, and related discussions in Japan can be examined amid the increasing social importance of drunk driving. These rulings are considered to have a similar social situation to Korea. Looking at the ruling on drunk driving, of course, although there was a background of caution ventilation in the local government, it shows that sanctions against drunk driving are gradually becoming stronger in Japan. The second ruling is also related to administrative discretion. The content of the judgment is a matter of the treatment of transgender people, which is being discussed at internal and abroad, and especially when a state official is a transgender person, it can be said to be a judgment on the treatment. As there are various discussions in Korea regarding the ruling of transgender public officials, it is understood as a reminder of the diversity and inclusion of society in that it is not reasonable to consider other employees excessively, especially when transgender people are public officials in Japan. The third judgment can be classified as a judgment on disposition in a revocation lawsuit. This judgment is a discussion on the part that, in relation to health insurance, the health insurance association is not a dependent on the dependent related to the insured. Regarding the notification by the health insurance association that it is not a dependent, there would have been little discussion on disposition if there were no legislative deficiencies. However, although it is necessary to have at least a basis in the law to affirm disposition under the current law without relevant regulations, the Supreme Court has so far affirmed disposition for acts that do not have an explicit basis in the law. It shouws this ruling is also meaningful in that it can be viewed as one of these precedents. The fourth judgment is related to the manuscript eligibility in a revocation lawsuit. This is related to whether the manuscript eligibility can be recognized by the surrounding residents in relation to the permission to change the management and facilities of the charnel house. The ruling on the permission of the charnel house needs to be examined in that it is believed that similar issues may occur in Korea in the future. In particular, it is significant that the Japanese court recognized the manuscript eligibility to protect the interests of residents in the area around the charnel house as individual interests, unlike in the past. The fifth judgment is on the issue of illegality related to the National Compensation Act and the decision to disclose personal information. This was a question of whether a person in a criminal facility should disclose a request for the disclosure of his or her medical records, and the national liability for compensation in this regard. Regarding the request for disclosure of medical records by a person in the accommodation facility, if the medical records are disclosed, the history and criminal records of the accommodation facility will be known to the outside, so it was considered not to be disclosed, but there was a question of whether individual medical records must be included in such data. Considering this and the international trend, it was made to disclose personal medical records because there was no reason not to disclose them; however, at the time of such a non-disclosure decision, non-disclosure was common, so the illegality of public officials was not recognized. However, this is meaningful in that the interpretation and application of laws in consideration of the purpose of legislation should be made to those in various situations in the future. The sixth judgment is a lawsuit related to local autonomy and resident lawsuits. In the domestic media, there are occasional reports on disputes between the government and Okinawa Prefecture in Japan, and this ruling is also about the establishment of an airfield in Okinawa Prefecture. In Okinawa Prefecture, the "legal interests" of Article 9 (1) of the Administrative Case Litigation Act need to be equal to the rights interests that the cause of death should be recognized for relief by a trial, and since the autonomy and tribute management rights claimed by local governments do not fall under this category, local governments are not eligible for plaintiffs to seek the cancellation of the ruling. It shows the same attitude as the result of this edition is subject to criticism from the standpoint of emphasizing local autonomy in the future. It is hoped that the introduction of recent administrative law-related precedents in Japan, which was examined in this article, will be used as a reference for future comparative legal studies.