행정절차 개념과 절차하자론 — 개별결정 절차에 관한 비교법적 검토를 중심으로 —

This paper examines the content of procedural regulations in individual administrative decision-making and the consequences of their violations through a comparative legal analysis. Its primary aim is to establish a theoretical framework for the doctrinal design of administrative procedural law (Dogmatik des Verwaltungsverfahrensrechts). The study explores how administrative procedures are conceptualized in the UK, the US, and Germany, the overarching principles or codified rules governing them, and how these principles are enforced in judicial proceedings. From a theoretical standpoint, the need to provide certain procedural safeguards against adverse decisions can be regarded as a universal principle. Assuming that the ideals of public law are those distinguished from the ideals of private law, a shift from a rights-based to an interest-based approach is desirable. However, recognizing the importance of administrative efficiency, procedural costs should be treated as one of the relevant considerations in the decision-making process. In addition, it is appropriate to reject the notion that nullification should be the sole remedy for procedural violations. From a doctrinal perspective, although procedural protections should be construed broadly, procedural violations should be classified so as to identify cases where annulment of the challenged decision is not strictly required. In this regard, the Supreme Court’s nuanced approach — balancing competing interests through proportionality review while avoiding direct clashes with the theory of the cause of action — should be seen as a positive development.