행정의 재량적 결정에 대한 사법심사방법의 정립

If an administrative decision is made in a binding manner, the court may conduct judicial review through a substitutionary judgment approach. However, where administrative discretion, margin of judgment, and discretion of planning are recognized and administrative autonomy must be respected, such a judicial review approach is not feasible. In these cases, the common method of judicial review is review of the decision-making process. Each domain of administrative discretion involves its own distinct decision-making process, and the judiciary must trace the process undertaken by the administrative body to determine whether any errors have been committed. In substantive review, various guiding principles of administrative law serve as judicial review standards. In the case of administrative discretion, the principle of proportionality is likely to be a key standard. However, the principle of minimal infringement should not be rigidly enforced from an ex-post perspective. Additionally, balancing of legal interests should be assessed at a level that ensures a reasonable balance between public and private interests, except in traditional punitive administrative actions, such as sanctions. For margin of judgment and discretion of planning, rationality review is inevitable due to the inherent judicial limitations in these areas. However, the use of indeterminate legal concepts should not serve as a means for courts to evade judicial determination. Instead, such concepts should be acknowledged only after conducting a thorough judicial review. Moreover, in discretion of planning, rigorous procedural control is necessary to ensure legality and legitimacy. Based on these discussions, it is essential to categorize judicial review standards and intensity of judicial review according to the type and nature of administrative acts. The question of which interpretative method should be used in legal interpretation, as well as the criteria and intensity with which judicial review should control administrative decisions, is subject to debate between judicial passivism and judicial activism. Additionally, judicial discretion may influence outcomes. However, by systematically categorizing administrative actions and their corresponding judicial review methods, legal stability and predictability can be enhanced, preventing arbitrary judicial interpretations and refining judicial control mechanisms for different types of administrative actions.