재판소원 도입의 전제요건에 대한 소고 - 독일의 초기경험을 중심으로 -

What societal prerequisites are necessary for the newly introduced Constitutional Complaint Against Court Decisions to become firmly established as an institution that faithfully fulfills its function of “strengthening the protection of citizens” fundamental rights'? Recently, there has been active discussion, particularly within political circles about introducing it, and soon it was introduced. However, the introduction of a new system requires an analysis of its interaction with reality. Concerns raised by some —that the Constitutional Court could become a ‘de facto fourth instance court’, or that lawsuits could flood in, leading to a loss of trust and destabilizing the judicial system itself—need to be examined based on an analysis of our current reality. Considering our society's high levels of conflict and polarization, low trust in the judiciary and National Assembly, and the pattern of conflict over interpretive authority between the courts and the Constitutional Court regarding modified decisions, introducing constitutional complaint against court decisions as part of ‘judicial reform’ now is expected to have significant adverse effects. So, what about other countries that introduced Constitutional Complaint against Court Decisions? To provide reference for discussions on introducing judicial review, this article examines the initial situation and early establishment process of the system in Germany, based on the writings of Professor Hans Joachim Faller, who served as a judge of the Federal Constitutional Court and a judge of the Federal Supreme Court. According to Professor Faller's explanation, in Germany, the introduction of the Constitutional Court and Constitutional Complaint against Court Decisions implied both a reflection on and a check against the abuse of state power—legislative, executive, and judicial—which had violated fundamental rights under the Nazi regime. Consequently, there was broad social consensus at the time for these new systems. While the Federal Supreme Court inherited the tradition of the ‘Reichsgericht’ (dissolved by the Allied powers for collaboration with the Nazi regime) and thus quickly gained authority, the early Federal Constitutional Court faced difficulties in establishing its status. This was partly because its judges were largely newcomers, including those expelled during the Nazi era. However, as stipulated in Article 1, Paragraph 3 of the German Basic Law, fundamental rights directly bind the legislature, administration, and judiciary, so the courts also regarded the protection of fundamental rights as a shared duty. While sometimes in conflict with the Federal Constitutional Court, they jointly interpreted laws based on the constitution according to the case at hand, thereby establishing theories for interpreting fundamental rights. Meanwhile, Professor Faller explains that the early cooperation between the two institutions was facilitated by the fact that the Federal Constitutional Court is also a ‘court’ under the German Basic Law, and by a structure that allows for easy sharing of personnel and knowledge between the two institutions. Professor Grimm adds that the German context also played a role, as many judges of the German Supreme Court had previously served as assistants to Federal Constitutional Court judges, making them well-versed in constitutional law. Building on this social reality and culture, the Federal Constitutional Court gradually adopted an expansive approach to constitutional interpretation. Through rulings like Lüth and Elfes, it broadened the scope of the constitution. In Germany, the boundaries between ordinary law and constitutional law became blurred as the scope of constitutional interpretation expanded significantly. Concerns about ‘over-constitutionalization’ led to attempts at various restrictive interpretation methods. Nevertheless, during the process of adjusting the interpretive authority between the two institutions, theories related to fundamental rights were also systematized, as seen in the case of general personality rights and the theory of quasi-expropriation. Compared to the circumstances surrounding the introduction of Constitutional Complaint against Court Decisions in Germany, our current societal reality presents several concerns regarding its implementation. For the successful establishment of the system, preparations are necessary to address worries of an overwhelming surge in cases, enhance the constitutional expertise of courts in interpreting fundamental rights and expand cooperation with the Constitutional Court, and also prevent the abuse of Constitutional Complaint against Court Decisions leading to litigation delays. Particularly given the current acute tension between the Constitutional Court and the courts, legislators should act as mediators between the two institutions, meticulously and continuously fulfilling their role to ensure the effective strengthening of the protection of citizens' fundamental rights for the successful establishment of the new system.