제주대학교 Repository

環境訴訟의 原告適格 擴大에 관한 硏究

Metadata Downloads
Abstract
The economic activities and developmental administration of a modern society cannot help but inevitably lead to various environmental damages. More victims of environmental infiltration have been coming out of the woodworks to file lawsuits to remove environmentally harmful facilities or to secure the rights of enjoying the sunshine and the view. However, with the traditional structure of civil suits or administrative procedure for administrative lawsuits, the reality is that a group conflict cannot be resolved effectively to relieve most of the environmental damages. As such, there has been a demand for an establishment of a new concept called environmental lawsuit. An environmental lawsuit refers to a court trial procedure specifically aimed at saving the environment from damages. The environmental lawsuit which is a modern integrated type of lawsuit can be said to encompass all the lawsuits that occur for the purpose of saving the environment which had been endangered due to the violation of the environment or to protect the environmental benefits.
The subject for environmental lawsuits have various origins and there are many cases where it would be hard to prove or claim responsibility. The scope of the damage especially has a wide distribution range. With just the subjective lawsuit structure which mainly focuses on realistic rescuing operation after the actual violation, it is not possible to amply resolve environmental matters. This is precisely why environmental matters cannot be resolved fully. Environmental lawsuits should also be equipped with the four abilities. Namely, ability of the adversary, appropriateness of the plaintiff, ability to carry out a lawsuit, and ability to plead which are the necessary requirements to proceed with the lawsuit appropriately. However, the environmental lawsuits which have the purpose of saving the natural disaster areas, go about arguing the qualifications as to whether you are able to propose a lawsuit rather than the validness of the lawsuit itself and gets blocked most of the time. In most cases, attempts to pass the first obstacle of fulfilling the criteria of plaintiff when trying to file an environmental lawsuit end in failure.
The lawsuit procedure structure in Korea which is based on the modern law system has the limit of not fully being able to protect the environmental benefits which has the strong characteristics of being publicly aggressive and objective. The adversary of the environmental pollution is almost always an urban civilian or an agricultural folk who lack specialized scientific knowledge. Not only do most of these people not realize that their health benefits have been victimized by several kinds of environment pollutants but even when they do know the source of the pollutant, they do not have the expertise to possess or obtain the proof. In the case where they can't properly demand their legal environmental benefits, even when they are environmentally violated, they will not be acknowledged as the plaintiff and basically lose even the opportunity to have a fair legal trial.
Following these turn of events, there have been several discussions in which they assert that in the environmental lawsuit which has the characteristics of an integrated and modern nature, the right of standing to sue should be expanded so that the victims who have been environmentally violated can be properly protected and saved. In the procedure of an environmental lawsuit, the tendency for the extension of standing to sue is appearing not only in Korea but has materialized in the same format in Germany, France, Japan and so on. Although the ways and methods to extend the standing to sue are diversely different, the tendency to acknowledge the standing to sue is concurrent in each country.
Following the protective standard theory which is being formed in Korea or Japan, the scope of the standing to sue is being limited. That is to say, it is stating that the protective standard theory must or should be a standard that protects individual benefits acknowledged by law. This is somewhat different from the French legislative law which acknowledges individual rights with the nation ubiquitously which had been set up through the people's revolution. In addition, this is a point which can be compared to the British law which looks at everything belonging to an individual's freedom and right unless otherwise stated by the positive law following the principles of legal domination. In Germany's case, with the suggestion that the protective standard theory has issues of an environmentally beneficial nature from a legal practical view, several discussions have been underway to expand on the right of standing to sue.
Japan's appropriateness of the plaintiff theory is also being developed focusing around the interpretation that there must be a legal benefit when proceeding with a lawsuit. Japan's precedents show a flexible interpretation that says the appropriateness of the plaintiff must be acknowledged even in the case where the legally valuable benefit is infiltrated while at the same time putting importance in the basic legal benefit. Practically speaking, they have the aim of guaranteeing relief afterwards or preventing environmental infiltration beforehand by extending on the standing to sue.
In Korea's case, it could be surmised that there have been discussions just like Japan in terms of extension of standing to sue. The supreme court has recently been reconfirming the current interpretive methods of the appropriateness of the plaintiff through the verdict of the Saemangeum case. At the same time, they are not denying the possibility of the expansion of the appropriateness of the plaintiff which takes the legal order and the aim of the legislation into consideration. In light of the complex modern administration procedure, the necessity of the expansion of the appropriateness of the plaintiff is being strengthened even further especially since the collective environmental dispute is occurring constantly. With such developments, the discussions to extend the standing to sue are becoming very active to reduce unnecessary national finance spending and to proceed with environmental preservation policy.
The following are the main points of the discussions for the extension of standing to sue. First, the right of specific environmental rights according to the constitution becomes possible with acknowledgement. The environmental rights refer to the right to live in a healthy, pleasant environment. The right to demand the creation of a clean and pleasant environment to the government is contained within this right as well. Within the code of environmental rights constitutionally, by deducing the result of the extension of standing to sue in environmental lawsuits, the constitutional concept of saving the environmental benefit can be realized. With the environmental rights as a basis, the public trust theory may be implemented as well. If the public trust theory were to be legislated, the citizens will be equipped with the basic right to demand the protection of the natural resources to the government which should act as the trustee.
Secondly, in the legislation sense, it is possible to proceed through article no. 12 of the public administration lawsuit law. The supreme court has already had a case where it submitted the revised bill of the public administration lawsuit law to the National Assembly to comply with the demand of the modern society followed by the extension of standing to sue. Although the public administration lawsuit law's revised bill with the contents of the purpose of expanding the range of the appropriateness of the plaintiff expired with the termination of the term of office of the 17th National Assembly automatically, the discussions for revision to protect the environmental benefits in a practical and specific way should continue. Under the current public administration lawsuit law, the appeal can only have an objective characteristic and in that sense, it would be advisable to change the term 'legal benefits' under article number 12 of the public administration lawsuit law into 'justifiable benefit'.
Thirdly, in relation to large scale environmental group dispute such as the 4 river project, I believe there is a need to implement a collective lawsuit system not unlike that of America's or Germany's class action suit or civil suit. The environmental disputes in most cases occur as a complex series of events in various fields such as soil contamination, urban development, and toxic substances. In the case of a group environmental dispute, it might be logical to choose a method whereby a certain environmental group is selected and given the standing to sue. In the environmental law field, the positive function of the collective lawsuit should be considered, and if we were also to take into account the fact that some environmental groups have become considerably specialized, even when the right to standing to sue is given to the environmental group, it is judged that they will do an excellent job of preserving the natural environment. Having said that however, in terms of selecting the environmental group, there needs to be a stricter and more justifiable standard to block out any side effects such as suing too many times over the limit.
Fourth, the natural rights lawsuits which are in the spotlight now as the new type of nature preservation should be investigated further. The natural rights lawsuit began in earnest in the USA and commanded an extensive social interest in 2003 with the 'Salamander Case' which eventually triggered a lot of active arguments. The natural rights lawsuit is a method where the nature or the natural objects itself becomes the adversary and carries on with the lawsuit. The human being becomes a spokesperson for the nature, and judges the benefit that nature has been forfeited with and thus can demand a just judgement. The natural rights lawsuit is the most controversial dispute in the sense that it goes against the positive law system. From the view point of putting importance on the ecological environmental law, it suggests an opinion that only by implementing the natural rights law can the natural environment protective system be firmly established. In the event of implementing the natural rights lawsuit, from a legislative theoretical view, it would be logical to choose the spokesperson from environmental groups, scientists groups or a statutory guardian to legally represent the specific natural being.
It would be impossible to implement the above mentioned extension of standing to sue methods of environmental lawsuits in Korea as it is and realistically speaking, it would be highly inappropriate to say the least as it currently stands. If we were to take a closer look from a totally practical point of view, out of these methods, the giving of rights of standing to sue to an environmental group specifically would be the most feasible. Since the collective lawsuits regarding stock bonds or consumer collective lawsuits are already underway, the most urgent priority should be in proceeding with legislating the policy where environmental groups which can protect public benefits is selected through appropriate standards so that they can go ahead with the procedure for environmental lawsuits.
Author(s)
강홍균
Issued Date
2011
Type
Dissertation
URI
http://dcoll.jejunu.ac.kr/jsp/common/DcLoOrgPer.jsp?sItemId=000000005330
Alternative Author(s)
Kang, Hong Kyoon
Affiliation
제주대학교
Department
대학원 법학과
Advisor
한삼인
Table Of Contents
第1章 序論 1

第1節 硏究의 目的 1

第2節 硏究의 範圍 5

第3節 硏究의 方法 6

第2章 環境訴訟의 理論的 基礎 8

第1節 環境被害의 發生과 對應體系의 變遷 8
1. 환경의 개념 8
2. 환경피해의 구제 11
(1) 환경피해의 의의 11
(2) 환경피해의 특징과 분류 13
3. 대응체계의 변천 16
(1) 국제사회의 변천과정 17
(2) 우리나라의 변천과정 18

第2節 環境訴訟의 意義와 特殊性 21
1. 환경피해의 구제방안 개관 21
2. 환경소송의 의의 23
(1) 환경소송의 개념 23
(2) 환경소송의 필요성 25
(3) 환경소송법 26
3. 환경소송의 특수성 26
(1) 환경문제의 발생원인의 다양성 26
(2) 입증책임의 곤란성 27
(3) 피해의 광역성 27
(4) 과다한 비용과 장시간의 필요 28

第3節 環境訴訟의 種類 28
1. 환경민사소송 29
(1) 환경민사소송의 종류 29
(2) 유지청구권과 손해배상청구권의 법적근거 31
(3) 유지청구 35
(4) 손해배상청구 38
2. 환경행정소송 45
(1) 의의 45
(2) 기능 46
(3) 성격 47
(4) 유형 47

第3章 環境訴訟에 있어서 原告適格의 法理 54

第1節 原告適格 一般論 54
1. 원고적격의 제도적 의의 54
(1) 원고의 의의 54
(2) 광의의 소의 이익 55
(3) 환경소송과 원고적격 57
2. 환경행정소송상 원고적격의 법리 58
(1) '법률상 이익'에 대한 학설의 경향 58
(2) 원고적격에 대한 판례의 경향 64
(3) 사견 66
3. 환경민사소송상 원고적격의 법리 66
(1) 손해배상청구의 원고적격 66
(2) 유지청구의 원고적격 70
(3) 사견 72
4. 현행법상 원고적격을 인정할 수 있는 경우 74
(1) 폐기물처리시설설치 촉진 및 주변지역지원 등에 관한 법률 74
(2) 환경․교통․재해등에 관한 영향평가법 74
(3) 먹는물 관리법 75

第2節 原告適格論에 대한 比較法的 考察 75
1. 독일의 원고적격론 75
(1) 독일 행정소송상 원고적격의 요건 75
(2) 주관적 공권과 보호규범론 76
2. 프랑스의 원고적격론 78
(1) 월권소송의 의의 78
(2) 월권소송의 원고적격 79
(3) 판례에 대한 검토 79
3. 미국의 원고적격론 81
(1) Standing의 해석문제 81
(2) 미국법상 원고적격의 존재이유 82
(3) 환경소송상 원고적격의 요건 84
(4) 원고적격에 관한 판례의 변천 88
4. 일본의 원고적격론 99
(1) 행정사건소송법 제9조 100
(2) 법률상보호이익설과 보호가치이익설의 대립 100
(3) 판례에 대한 검토 104
5. 중국의 원고적격론 109
(1) 법률상 이해관계에 대한 규정 109
(2) 법률상 이해관계와 원고적격의 기준 111
6. 사견 111

第3節 原告適格 擴大論 113
1. 환경소송상 원고적격의 확대 필요성과 등장배경 113
(1) 원고적격 확대의 필요성 113
(2) 원고적격 확대론의 등장배경 117
2. 환경권 법리와 원고적격 확대론 118
(1) 환경권의 의의와 권리성 118
(2) 환경권의 주체와 원고적격의 확대 125
(3) 공공신탁이론의 도입과 활성화 방안 129
3. 원고적격 확대론에 대한 비교법적 고찰 133
(1) 독일 판례상 원고적격의 확대 경향 133
(2) 미국 법원의 원고적격 확대화 경향 135
(3) 일본의 '법률상 이익' 확대 해석 136
(4) 사견 137
4. 항고소송의 객관소송화 138
(1) 우리나라에서의 객관소송화 논의 138
(2) 환경소송의 객관소송화 가능성 139
5.원고적격 확대에 대한 입법론적 고찰 140
(1) 행정소송법상 원고적격의 판단기준 140
(2) 17대 국회에 제출된 행정소송법 개정안 제12조의 검토 142

第4章 原告適格 擴大 法理의 實際 148

第1節 隣近住民의 原告適格 148
1. 인인소송의 유형과 판례의 검토 148
(1) 인인소송의 의의 148
(2) 인인소송의 유형 149
(3) 인인보호 판례에 대한 검토 150
2. 환경영향평가 인근주민의 원고적격에 대한 판례의 검토 157
(1) 환경영향평가제도의 의의와 내용 157
(2) 새만금 간척사업 사건 158
(3) 제주도 송악산 관광지 사건 160
(4) 남대천 양수발전소 사건 162
(5) 영광원자력발전소 사건 163
(6) 판례에 대한 검토 163
4. 환경영향평가 대상지역의 설정과 원고적격 부여 164
(1) 대상지역 선정의 문제점 164
(2) 대법원의 진일보한 입장 166
(3) 원고적격 인정기준의 문제점 167
(4) 사견 168
5. 독일의 제3자 고려명령이론에 대한 검토 169
(1) 제3자 고려명령이론의 의의 169
(2) 건축법 분야 170
(3) 환경법 분야 171

第2節 集團訴訟制度 導入에 의한 原告適格의 擴大 172
1. 우리나라의 집단환경분쟁 사례 172
(1) 4대강 정비사업 173
(2) 태안 허베이 스피리트호 기름유출 사고 174
(3) 사견 175
2. 집단소송에 관한 외국의 입법례 176
(1) 집단소송의 입법 양태 176
(2) 미국의 대표당사자소송과 시민소송 177
(3) 독일의 단체소송 181
(4) 일본의 주민소송 184
3. 환경분야의 집단소송제도 도입에 대한 검토 186
(1) 우리나라의 집단소송 입법례 186
(2) 환경분야 집단소송제도 도입의 필요성 190
(3) 집단소송제도의 입법 방향 192

第3節 環境保護團體에 대한 原告適格 賦與方案 197
1. 독일 환경단체소송상 NGO의 원고적격 검토 197
(1) 절차참가권에 기한 환경단체 원고적격의 한계 197
(2) 주 자연보호법상 환경단체의 원고적격 201
2. NGO의 국제환경법상 주체성 202
(1) NGO의 개념 202
(2) 국제사회에서 NGO의 활동 204
3. 현행 소송법체계에서 NGO의 대응수단과 한계 205
(1) 환경단체 활동영역의 확대 205
(2) 선정당사자제도와 공동소송제도의 문제점 206
(3) 비법인사단의 원고적격 한계 208
4. 우리나라에의 도입 가능성 208
(1) 현행법상 환경단체의 행정절차 관여 입법례 208
(2) 도입 가능성의 검토 209
(3) 환경단체 승인에 대한 선정기준 211

第4節 事例를 통해 본 原告適格 擴大 必要性 214
1. 국책사업 개발과 환경간의 갈등 214
2. 원고적격에 대한 새로운 인식전환 필요성 215
3. 원고적격의 확대를 위한 제안 217
(1) 환경소송에 있어 소송구조의 도입 217
(2) 건강하고 쾌적한 환경에 대한 독립적인 권리인정 219

第5章 原告適格 擴大의 特殊問題 222

第1節 自然의 權利訴訟의 原告適格 222
1. 자연의 법적가치의 인정 222
2.자연의 원고적격성 223
(1) '자연의 권리'의 개념 223
(2) 자연의 원고적격성 검토 224
3. 자연의 권리 소송의 의의 226
4. 외국에서의 자연의 권리소송 논의 227
(1) 미국 228
(2) 일본 231
5. 자연의 권리소송의 도입가능성 233
(1) 자연의 원고적격성 찬반론 233
(2) 실정법 체계와의 저촉 234
(3) 새로운 소송제도의 도입 필요성 235
(4) 자연에 대한 후견인 제도 236

第2節 도롱뇽 訴訟에 대한 檢討 237
1. 도롱뇽 소송의 경과 237
2. 도롱뇽의 원고적격 주장 238
3. 대법원의 입장 239
4. 대법원 결정에 대한 검토 240

第3節 自然環境 自體의 被害에 대한 原告適格 241
1. 무주의 자연환경피해에 대한 국가의 주체성 241
(1) 자연환경 자체의 피해의 개념 241
(2) 환경의 공공성과 국가의 책무 242
(3) 국가후견이론 244
2. 국가의 원고적격에 대한 검토 248
(1) 명예훼손과 국가의 원고적격 248
(2) 국가의 손해배상청구소송 논의 249
(3) 국가의 항고소송상 원고적격 252
(4) 사견 257

第6章 結論 258

參考文獻 264
Degree
Doctor
Publisher
제주대학교 대학원
Citation
강홍균. (2011). 環境訴訟의 原告適格 擴大에 관한 硏究
Appears in Collections:
General Graduate School > Law
Authorize & License
  • AuthorizeOpen
Files in This Item:

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.