독일 사회부조법상 개별성 원칙과 필요보장 원칙의 교착 - 한국의 공공부조법에 주는 시사점을 중심으로 -

This study conducted a comparative analysis of how the German Social Assistance Act's principle of ensuring necessity (Bedarfsdeckungsgrundsatz) and principle of individualization (Individualisierungsgrundsatz) are intertwined and implemented. This aims to improve the current reality where normative control over benefits under Korea's Public Assistance Act is virtually non-existent. Germany combines human dignity (Article 1) and the principle of the social state (Article 20) in its Basic Law to recognize the guarantee of a minimum standard of living as a constitutional obligation, codifying the principle of individualization in Section 9 of Book 12 of the Social Code. In a 2010 decision, the Federal Constitutional Court ruled that legislation failing to guarantee “unavoidable, ongoing, and non-one-time special needs” not covered by standardized, fixed-amount benefits was unconstitutional. Accordingly, Germany addresses the specific circumstances of individual recipients through various benefit systems, including provisions for additional needs, one-time needs, and exceptional cases, beyond standard necessities. This has led to an active system of remedies, with approximately 90,000 social assistance lawsuits filed annually. In contrast, while Article 4(2) of Korea's National Basic Living Security Act mentions factors for considering the principle of individuality, in practice, only uniform benefit standards centered on household size are applied. By comprehensively delegating the specific details of benefit requirements and effects to subordinate administrative legislation such as presidential decrees and public notices, the courts' interpretive authority is constrained, and it is difficult toensure the concrete appropriateness of individual cases through indeterminate legal concepts. This study proposes that Korea, drawing on the German case, should: ① clearly guarantee the right to a minimum standard of living as a legal entitlement to individual recipients of public assistance in their diverse circumstances; ② establish various benefit types and provisions for exceptional cases; ③ restore the courts' authority to interpret indeterminate legal concepts; and ④ improve the public assistance litigation process in a manner that is favorable to the plaintiffs, who are recipients of public assistance. It particularly emphasizes the urgent need for legislative and judicial improvements to ensure the substantive protection of the rights of recipients with atypical cases or special needs, especially at the point where the constitutional right to a decent life and the principle of individuality intersect.