표제지

목차

제1장 서론 13

제1절 연구의 목적 13

제2절 연구의 범위 및 방법 18

제2장 금지명령의 개념과 요건 23

제1절 금지명령의 연혁 23

I. 영국에서의 기원 23

II. 미국에서의 발전 26

III. 미국법의 금지명령 27

제2절 금지명령의 기본법리 32

I. 형평법상의 원칙 32

II. 법원의 재량권 33

제3절 금지명령의 개념과 종류 36

I. 금지명령의 개념 36

1. 금지명령의 정의와 목적 36

2. 장래불법행위의 구제수단 38

II. 금지명령의 종류 41

1. 영구적 금지명령 41

가. 금지적 금지명령 42

나. 이행적 금지명령 43

2. 중간적 금지명령 46

가. 임시적 금지명령 47

나. 임시적 이행명령 48

다. 임시적 제한명령 49

제4절 금지명령의 발령 및 배제요건 50

I. 금지명령의 발령요건 50

1. 명확한 권리보호 50

가. 예방필요성이 명확한 사건 50

나. 본안의 승소가능성 52

다. 원고적격과 소의 이익 54

2. 손해 55

가. 법적으로 보호되는 손해 55

나. 예견되거나 위협된 손해 56

다. 회복할 수 없는 손해 57

(1) 회복할 수 없는 손해의 가능성 57

(2) 회복할 수 없는 손해의 결정 60

3. 손해의 균형 62

가. 비교형량 62

나. 공익 64

다. 비교형량의 제한 65

4. 중복소송의 가능성 66

5. 구제수단의 보충성 69

가. 보충성의 의의 69

나. 제정법상 구제수단 71

다. 직무집행영장 71

라. 권한개시영장 72

마. 상소심 73

바. 재판외 구제수단 73

사. 행정상 구제수단의 보충성 73

II. 금지명령의 배제요건 74

1. 법률 또는 헌법상 권리의 제한적 행사 74

2. 원고의 불법행위 76

3. 집행의 불가능 77

가. 원고의 이익 상실 77

나. 피고의 재정상태 78

4. 제정법상의 금지명령 79

5. 권리행사의 해태, 묵인, 지연 81

가. 해태, 묵인, 지연의 의의 81

나. 피고의 의제적인 고의 84

다. 소제기기간의 효력 84

라. 지연에 대한 면책 85

마. 금반언과 권리포기 85

제3장 행정소송상의 금지명령 88

제1절 서설 88

제2절 사법심사와 소송방식 91

I. 사법심사의 적용배제 91

1. 연방행정절차법 제701조의 내용 91

2. 법률이 사법심사를 배제하는 경우 92

3. 행정청의 재량행위 94

II. 사법심사의 적용대상 96

1. 연방행정절차법 제704조의 내용 96

2. 보충성 97

가. 보충성의 의의 97

나. 보충성의 예외 98

3. 성숙성 100

가. 행정입법 100

나. 비공식적 행정행위 102

III. 원고적격 103

1. 연방행정절차법 제702조의 내용 103

2. 사실상의 이익 침해 104

3. 인과관계와 구제가능성 106

4. 보호이익영역 108

IV. 사법심사의 소송방식 109

1. 행정법상 영구적 금지명령 110

가. 행정법상 금지적 금지명령 110

나. 행정법상 이행적 금지명령 111

(1) 불법적으로 거부된 행정행위 111

(2) 불합리하게 지연된 행정행위 112

2. 행정법상 중간적 금지명령 114

제2절 입법부의 입법행위 115

I. 서설 115

II. 의회의 청문과 위원회의 행위 116

III. 조례와 결의 117

1. 원칙 117

2. 예외 118

3. 조례의 공포 119

4. 조례에 대한 금지명령 119

IV. 입법권 이외의 권한행사제한 120

제3절 공무원, 행정위원회, 수탁기관의 행위 121

I. 서설 121

1. 적합한 법적구제수단이 없는 회복할 수 없는 손해 122

2. 불법행위, 월권행위, 자의적인 행위 123

II. 공무원, 행정위원회, 시 위원회의 행위 125

1. 공무원 행정행위의 적법추정 125

2. 원고적격과 보호이익 126

III. 지방자치단체와 지방공무원 127

IV. 법집행 공무원 127

1. 경찰관 127

2. 사업운영의 보호 128

V. 주 정부 공무원의 행정행위 129

제4절 법령, 행정규칙, 조례, 결의 집행 130

I. 서설 130

II. 금지명령의 요건 132

1. 회복할 수 없는 손해 132

2. 본안의 승소가능성 133

3. 원고적격 133

가. 원고적격을 인정한 사례 134

나. 원고적격을 부정한 사례 137

III. 법규범의 유형 138

1. 법령의 집행 138

가. 불공평한 법령의 집행 139

나. 법령의 합헌성 여부 141

2. 행정규칙의 집행 143

3. 조례와 결의 145

제4장 금지명령의 행정소송절차 148

제1절 재판관할권 148

I. 서설 148

II. 연방법원 149

1. 연방법원의 기준 149

2. 3인합의지방법원 150

III. 항소법원 151

IV. 재판관할권의 제한 152

제2절 당사자 153

I. 서설 153

1. 원고 153

2. 피고 155

II. 공동소송 155

1. 소송참가의 원칙 155

2. 소송참가의 예외 156

3. 공무원이 피고인 경우 157

제3절 사전통지절차 158

I. 서설 158

1. 사전통지절차의 원칙 159

2. 사전통지의 유형 159

II. 임시적 제한명령 160

1. 연방규칙 160

2. 주 정부의 규칙 161

III. 임시적 금지명령 162

1. 사전통지의 요구 162

2. 사전통지의 생략 163

3. 일방적인 임시적 금지명령의 경우 164

제4절 재판전 절차 165

I. 서설 165

1. 소답절차 165

2. 소송원인 166

II. 사실에 대한 진술 166

1. 확실하고 정확한 진술 166

2. 회복할 수 없는 손해의 진술 167

3. 제정법상 구제수단의 진술 168

III. 구제에 대한 청구취지 169

제5절 소송절차 171

I. 재판의 쟁점사실 171

1. 배심재판권 171

2. 사실과 법적문제의 확정 171

II. 각하 또는 취하, 기각 174

III. 임시적 제한명령의 신청 175

IV. 임시적 금지명령 신청의 심리와 결정 176

1. 임시적 금지명령의 신청 176

2. 임시적 금지명령의 심리 177

3. 임시적 금지명령의 결정 179

가. 증거 179

나. 입증책임 180

다. 본안의 승소가능성 181

(1) 본안의 승소가능성 고려 181

(2) 본안의 종국결정 183

V. 영구적 금지명령의 심리와 판결 184

1. 영구적 금지명령의 심리 184

2. 영구적 금지명령의 판결 185

제5장 독일의 행정소송제도와 비교고찰 187

제1절 독일의 행정소송제도 187

I. 이행소송 187

1. 이행소송 187

2. 일반이행소송 191

II. 예방적 금지소송 192

III. 가구제 193

1. 집행정지원칙 193

2. 즉시집행명령 194

3. 가명령 195

제2절 미국의 금지명령과 비교고찰 198

I. 이행소송 198

1. 소송요건 198

2. 대상적격 199

3. 이행판결의 강제 200

II. 예방적 금지소송 200

III. 가구제 201

1. 집행정지의 원칙 201

2. 가명령 202

가. 소송요건 202

나. 입증책임 203

다. 신청인의 책임 204

제6장 결론 205

참고문헌 216

ABSTRACT 224

From this dissertation minutely tried to observe Injunctions system about the agency action which is provided in the Federal Administrative Procedure Act of the United States. And tried to observe the judicial precedent of federal Supreme Court where the judicial review of how concretely the United States have become accomplished in the center was grasped. Also tried to observe how the map of the judicial review of United States could reflect in our country administrative lawsuit system

Injunction is an equitable remedy designed to protect property or other rights from irreparable injury by prohibiting or commanding certain acts. The term may also refer more narrowly to the court order, writ, or process that directs a person either to refrain from doing certain acts that are against equity or conscience or, if the relief is mandatory, to undo the wrong or injury with which the person is charged. It may be the final order in an action or it may be allowed as a provisional remedy. Commonly referred to as the "strong arm" of equity, it is an extraordinary remedy that should be used sparingly and only in a clear case. The relief may be granted or denied in the discretion of the court in accordance with the justice and equity of the case. Injunction is not appropriate if a remedy at law can furnish the injured party with the full relief to which he or she is entitled. Courts broadly construe the meaning of the term injunction. Because injunction is a remedy and not a cause of action, a party seeking injunction must allege some wrongful conduct for which the requested injunction is an appropriate remedy.

Whether interlocutory or final, injunctive relief is ordinarily preventive or protective in character and operates upon unperformed acts rather than upon those that have already occurred. With regard to the duration of the restraint, an injunction may be classified as a restraining order, a temporary or preliminary injunction, or a permanent injunction.

Remedy by injunction is generally prohibitory, meaning that the injunction forbids the continuance of a wrongful act or the causing of some threatened or anticipated injury. An injunction is considered prohibitory when the thing complained of results from present and continuing affirmative acts and the injunction merely orders a defendant to refrain from doing those acts. In other words, a prohibitory injunction requires a party to desist from doing certain acts in order preserve the status quo. Mandatory injunctions, in contrast, require positive action involving a change of existing conditions by the doing or undoing of an act. An order enjoininga party is prohibitory if it leaves the parties in the same position as they were before the entry of the judgment, while it is mandatory if its enforcement would change the position of the parties or compel them to act in accordance with the judgment. Injunctions may also be of a dual character, possessing both prohibitive and mandatory features. Furthermore, an injunction prohibitive in form may accomplish the same result as one mandatory in form, such as one that restrains the defendant from discontinuing the complainant's access to a public utility.

Unlike a final or permanent injunction, a temporary or interlocutory injunction is preliminary to a hearing on the merits. The object of a temporary injunction, which may be viewed as an execution before judgment, is not to determine any contested right but simply to prevent a threatened wrong or injury to property or rights until the issues and equities can be determined after a full examination and hearing.

Basically, there are two types of injunctions: a preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order(TRO). The purpose of both is to maintain the status quo -- to insure a plaintiff that the defendant will not either make him or herself judgment-proof, or insolvent in some way, or to stop him or her from acting in the harmful, complained-of way until further judicial proceedings are available.

There is a balancing test that courts typically employ in determining whether to issue an injunction. The defendant's 5th Amendment due process rights are weighed against the possibility of the defendant becoming judgment-proof, and the immediacy of the harm allegedly done to the plaintiff. When it is possible, the defendant must always be put on notice of the injunction hearing, and the duration of the injunction is typically as temporary as possible. Additionally, in many jurisdictions, plaintiffs demanding an injunction are required to post a bond.

Injunctions are also characterized as preventive, reparative, or structural. A preventive injunction attempts to foreclose future harmful acts and therefore is improper unless the defendant is threatening to commit a wrong. A reparative injunction prevents future harmful effects of past acts and requires the defendant to restore the plaintiff to a pre-existing condition to which plaintiff is entitled. A structural injunction is designed to remodel a social or political institution to bring it into conformity with constitutional demands and is typically used as a public law remedy for serious and pervasive rights violations. The mere potential for a future violation of constitutional rights does not give a court authority to continue invocation of its injunctive powers.

An injunction will not issue against one who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the court. Because equity jurisdiction is exercised in personam and not in rem, the remedy of injunction ordinarily operates in personam and is enforceable against individuals and not against property. If, however, a statute provides that a decree in equity operates in rem when a court gains in rem jurisdiction, a court may grant injunctive relief by a decree that operates in rem as well as in personam. Furthermore, if a court has personal jurisdiction and a proper case for injunctive relief is otherwise made out, the court's power to grant that relief will not be defeated by the fact that the injunction refers to real property beyond the territorial jurisdiction or to judicial proceedings prosecuted by the defendant in another state.

Injunctive relief is designed to meet a real threat of a future wrong or a contemporary wrong of a nature likely to continue or recur. Whether interlocutory or final, injunctive relief is ordinarily preventive or protective in character and restrains actions that have not yet been taken. It is generally not intended to redress, or punish for, past wrongs. Coercive in nature, injunctive relief is meant to restrain motion and to enforce inaction. To obtain injunctive relief based on past injury, the plaintiff must show a real and immediate threat that the injury will continue or be repeated. Accordingly, rights already lost and wrongs already perpetrated cannot be corrected by injunction.

In cases of necessity, however, or if serious hardship or injustice will result without injunction, courts have equitable authority to grant mandatory injunctions compelling a defendant to undo the wrong done, except as limited by statute or constitutional provision. Mandatory injunctions compel positive action to change existing conditions and to restore the status quo, while prohibitory injunctions preserve the status quo by restraining the commission or continuance of an act. Under appropriate circumstances, a court can grant injunctive relief that is designed to preserve the status quo so as to prevent issues that are to be submitted to arbitration from becoming moot. The pendency or issuance of an injunction does not prevent a concurrentor later remedy for past violations by indictment or an action for damages by those injured.

The granting of an injunction based on a statute is to be determined by the statute in force when the relief is to be awarded. A court will not grant an injunction requiring a future performance that the court will be unable to supervise.

Generally, the conditions at the time of the hearing of the suit, rather than as they existed at the suit's commencement, will be the basis for any injunctive relief. Because equity interposes by injunction to prevent only future acts, conduct that has been discontinued before or after a suit is brought to restrain such conduct is generally an insufficient basis for injunctive relief. This is especially true when nothing indicates that the acts will likely resume, or when repetition is impossible and the wrongdoer is able to respond in damages. Furthermore, injunctive relief will generally be refused where, before the final hearing, the plaintiff loses his or her interest in the subject matter sought to be protected, or where the act sought to be restrained has been made lawful by statute pending the trial. On remand, new facts that have occurred since the original trial and that relate to the balance of equities are relevant to the determination of injunctive relief.

It has also been held, however, that the discontinuance of wrongful or illegal conduct does not alone warrant the denial of injunctive relief. An injunction may still be justified as a matter of sound judicial discretion whenever conditions have materially changed or the acts complained of have been abandoned. The suit will not be defeated if the defendant threatens further wrongful acts of the same character as the abandoned acts. In determining whether a discontinued course of conduct should be enjoined, a court must consider the genuineness of an expressed intent not to repeat the conduct, the effectiveness of the discontinuance, and the character of past violations, particularly if the violations represent an established practice of the persons to be enjoined. For example, mere assurances by public officials and officials of common carriers that illegal practices affecting civil rights have been terminated will not justify the denial of an injunction, if such officials have persistently opposed the recognition of civil rights.

A defendant who proceeds to do the things complained of after notice of a suit to enjoin cannot defeat the injunction on the grounds that the acts sought to be restrained have already been done. In such circumstances, a preliminary mandatory injunction may be issued to restore the status quo as it existed before the defendant acted. The doing of an act pending an action for an injunction may, however, make it impossible for the court to grant effectual relief, and the court may dismiss the action if the issue has become moot.

When trying to synthesize like this points and our administrative lawsuit, does not accomplish all the role in right relief of the citizen. Also controlling an administrative right cannot accoplish all the role. Consequently, If Judiciary does not change in future, it is going to be extremely difficult troubleshooting. The Supreme Court administrative lawsuit legal revised bill which is propelled problem because like these to our administrative lawsuit development and stepping forward. But revised bill still was abolished in National Assembly and executions are still indefinite. But, When our administrative lawsuit goes with what kind of direction, the role as the mileage ticket does about. There are to like this changes, the Injunctions of the United States grow suggests.