입법영향분석제도에 관한 법적 연구 - 주요국의 비교를 중심으로 -

In contemporary society, the expansion of governmental functions and the increasing complexity of regulatory structures have resulted in a quantitative surge in legislation while simultaneously undermining the qualitative integrity of legal norms. The phenomena commonly described as Normenflut (flood of norms) and Paragrafendickicht (thicket of provisions) reveal a legal environment in which legislative volume grows, yet coherence, predictability, administrative feasibility, and fundamental rights protection become increasingly fragile. Legislative Impact Assessment (Gesetzesfolgenabschätzung) has emerged as an institutional response to these challenges. Beyond a technical tool for drafting, it is understood as a cyclical mechanism that anticipates the potential costs, benefits, rights implications, administrative conditions, and normative conflicts of legislation prior to enactment, and subsequently evaluates its practical effects to inform and revise the legal framework. Such assessment thus serves as a crucial instrument for improving legislative quality, enhancing policy accountability, and reinforcing constitutional legitimacy. This study first classifies Legislative Impact Assessment into ex-ante, concurrent, and ex-post phases, and examines comparative models in Germany, Switzerland, and the European Union where these stages operate as an integrated and iterative evaluation cycle. It then analyzes the fragmented structure of relevant institutions in Korea—such as the National Assembly Budget Office, the National Assembly Research Service, regulatory and environmental impact assessments, anti-corruption and gender impact evaluations, government performance assessments, and the Ministry of Government Legislation’s review and revision processes. The study identifies major systemic limitations: (1) the absence of mandatory evaluation for parliamentary bills despite their dominant share of legislation, (2) the predominance of sector-specific policy assessments rather than a comprehensive constitutional perspective, (3) the lack of a unified data cycle connecting ex-ante and ex-post evaluation results, and (4) insufficient constitutional grounding for legislative responsibility and post-enactment monitoring duties. Based on this analysis, the study proposes the establishment of a unified Legislative Impact Assessment system by: (1) revising general legislation such as the National Assembly Act to institutionalize assessment for both government-submitted and member-initiated bills; (2) developing an integrated data platform linking ex-ante, concurrent, and ex-post analyses; (3) consolidating sector-specific assessments into a comprehensive LIA framework; and (4) providing explicit constitutional or quasi-constitutional basis for monitoring, evaluation, and fundamental-rights review obligations of lawmakers. Ultimately, a cyclic and integrated Legislative Impact Assessment regime can mitigate legislative inflation and regulatory fragmentation, while strengthening the rule of law, securing fundamental rights, and contributing to the production of “better legislation.”