State Action 이론과 기본권의 제3자적 효력

Abstract

미국의 state action 이론은 헌법을 사인간의 관계에 적용하기 위하여 판례를 통하여 발전된 이론이지만, 최근에는 적용범위가 제한되고 있다. 우리나라에서도 공법인 헌법은 원칙적으로 사인간에는 적용되지 않지만, 예외적으로 사법의 일반조항을 통하여 간접 적용된다고 보고 있다.

이 글에서는 미국의 state action 이론의 성립과정과 내용을 살펴보고, 우리나라에도 이 이론이 적용가능한가를 알아보기 위하여 미국판례에서 나타난 사례들을 우리나라 상황에서 재해석하여 보았다. 우리나라는 미국과 달리 공법과 사법의 구별이 분명하고, 위헌법률심사제도 및 각종 소송제도도 다르며, 노동·경제·남녀평등 문제 등에 관한 단행법률들이 제정·시행되고 있으므로, state action 이론을 적용할 수 있는 가능성은 매우 작으며, 기존의 다수설에 따라 간접적용설이 더 타당하다고 생각된다.

State action doctrine is developed through the Court decisions in the U.S.A. in order to apply the constitutional law to relationship between private persons, but in recent days it is applied limitedly. In Korea, the constitutional law is a public law. So it is, as a rule, not applied to private relations. But exceptionally it is applied indirectly through the general provisions of civil law.

I study the history and content of state action doctrine and reinterprete the state action cases of the U.S.A. in Korean context to find out applicability of the doctrine to Korea.

In Korea, differently in the U.S.A., there are a sharp distinction between public and private law, different litigation systems, and various statutes on labor, economy and equal protection of women. Therefore applicability of the doctrine to Korean cases seems very low, and I thought the indirect application theory more appropriate that majority of Korean scholars support.

State action doctrine is developed through the Court decisions in the U.S.A. in order to apply the constitutional law to relationship between private persons, but in recent days it is applied limitedly. In Korea, the constitutional law is a public law. So it is, as a rule, not applied to private relations. But exceptionally it is applied indirectly through the general provisions of civil law.

I study the history and content of state action doctrine and reinterprete the state action cases of the U.S.A. in Korean context to find out applicability of the doctrine to Korea.

In Korea, differently in the U.S.A., there are a sharp distinction between public and private law, different litigation systems, and various statutes on labor, economy and equal protection of women. Therefore applicability of the doctrine to Korean cases seems very low, and I thought the indirect application theory more appropriate that majority of Korean scholars support.