AI기본법 제정에 따른 행정설명청구권의 입법 필요성과 법적 쟁점

This article frames the enactment of Korea’s 2024 Artificial Intelligence Basic Act as a turning point that has accelerated the adoption of AI across the public sector and argues for the statutory recognition of a right to administrative explanation—a positive-law entitlement enabling citizens to demand “reasonable and meaningful explanations” for every stage of administrative decisions in which AI intervenes or operates. First, by purposively interpreting Article 23 of the Administrative Procedures Act, Article 9 of the Official Information Disclosure Act, and Article 3 of the AI Basic Act, the study reveals structural deficiencies in the current regulatory architecture. It then analyzes global norms by comparing the EU AI Act, Canada’s AIDA bill, and Australia’s VAISS. Drawing on the constitutional principles of due process, the right of access to the courts, and informational self-determination, the article locates constitutional foundations for the proposed right and develops a governance model and legislative roadmap to bolster algorithmic accountability in the public sector. The analysis shows that, even where AI substantially influences administrative outcomes, citizens lack any institutional channel to verify decision processes, data provenance, algorithmic architecture, or reasoning logic, thereby posing a grave threat to procedural fundamental rights. To remedy this gap, the article proposes (i) elevating the right to administrative explanation to a mandatory provision for high-risk AI–driven administrative acts within the AI Basic Act; (ii) creating special procedural safeguards for AI-assisted decisions under the Administrative Procedures Act; (iii) establishing a presumption of algorithmic transparency, coupled with independent audit mechanisms, in the Official Information Disclosure Act; and (iv) instituting an independent “Administrative Algorithm Accountability Commission” that oversees a four-stage system of ex-ante assessment, continuous monitoring, independent supervision, and civic oversight. These reforms, the article contends, would mitigate information asymmetries, dispersed accountability, and procedural opacity in an increasingly technology-dominated administrative environment, thereby enhancing transparency and safeguarding citizens’ fundamental rights.