과잉금지원칙상 입법목적 정당성 판단에 대한 고찰 ― 입법목적의 확인 및 평가 관련 미국과 한국의 심사방식에 대한 비교헌법적 검토 ―

The legitimacy of legislative purpose, a sub-principle of the prohibition of excessive restriction principle, constitutes a normative evaluation of legislation restricting constitutional rights and requires that the legislative intent at the time of enactment be constitutionally valid. In many jurisdictions that utilize the principle of proportionality as a primary standard of constitutional review, the determination of the legitimacy of legislative purpose is a critical stage of adjudication. In particular, the U.S. Supreme Court has established principles regarding the methodology of reviewing legislative purpose through a long process of trial and error across numerous cases. According to these principles, the collective will of the legislators, as manifested in various records at the time of enactment, constitute the genuine legislative purpose, which can be identified through factual inquiry and evidentiary proof. While there have been attempts to establish legislative purpose solely through the interpretation of a given statute rather than legislative records, the Supreme Court has consistently endeavored to confirm actual legislative intent via diverse methods—including the examination of legislative records and the hearing of testimony—due to the risks of inaccurate or arbitrary construction of legislative purpose. Meanwhile, the Constitutional Court of Korea occasionally identifies legislative intent through direct or indirect means, such as legislative records (e.g., minutes of proceedings or statements of purpose), legislative history, and the purpose clause of the statute. However, it is problematic that the Constitutional Court sometimes presents a legislative purpose based solely on statutory interpretation, often through repetitive citations of the instant provision itself or without providing substantial grounds. Regarding the evaluation of legitimacy, the Constitutional Court has conducted its review based on whether the purpose aligns with the grounds for restricting constitutional rights under Article 37, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution of Korea or other explicit and implicit constitutional values. Yet, in certain cases, the Constitutional Court concludes its judgment by simply listing legislative purposes without citing specific constitutional grounds. While it is difficult to generalize that the review of the legitimacy of legislative purpose in the Court is consistently inadequate or perfunctory, a discussion on improving these problematic practices appears necessary. A potential remedy would involve identifying legislative purpose based on a diligent investigation and synthesis of legislative materials, history, and purpose clauses, and subsequently providing a robust narrative in the Court’s opinions that details the criteria and reasoning behind the evaluation of constitutional legitimacy. Even if the legislature is not a party to the proceedings, the Constitutional Court must perform the identification and evaluation of legislative purpose with due diligence. Given that a rational judgment and detailed argumentation regarding the legitimacy of legislative purpose can increase the acceptance of judicial outcomes and serve as legislative guidelines to enhance the constitutional compatibility of future laws, the proper execution of identifying and evaluating legislative purpose is undoubtedly a paramount task in constitutional adjudication.