공익과 사익의 이익형량과 선택 : 폐기물관리법 규정과 발치한 치아를 소재로

정이근(Jeong Yi-Keun) 부산대학교 법학연구소 2011 법학연구 Vol.52 No.3

본 논문은 발치한 치아를 소재로 하여 폐기물관리법 관련 규정의 의미 및 발치한 치아의 물건성과 재산성에 대하여 검토하고, 공익과 사익의 충돌과 이익선택의 문제 및 이와 관련한 합리적인 해결 방안을 제시해 보고자 한다. 공익과 사익이 충돌하는 구체적인 상황에서는 유효한 기준을 적용하여 각 이익을 형량하고, 그에 따른 선택을 결정 할 수밖에 없는 것이며, 결국 공법상 비례의 원칙을 적용한 이익형량을 전제로 할 수밖에 없다. 본 논문에서 제시한 사례와 같이, 발치한 치아가 사소한 물건으로 보얼 수 있지만 국민의 현실 생활과 밀접한 사안임을 감안하면 이에 대한 학술적 검토는 매우 중요한 의미를 갖는 것으로 판단한다. 즉, 폐기물관리라는 국가목적(공익)의 실현과 이에 대응되는 개인의 이익 사이의 충돌과 선택의 문제를 고민하게 한다. 논문에서는, 치과의원에서 발치한 치아의 처리에 관한 한, 환자의 의견을 사전에 물어 폐기물로 처리되도록 하거나 본인이 수령을 원하는 경우 적절한 소독조치를 통하여 개인에게 불출할 수 있도록 입법에서 명확히 규정할 필요가 있다는 것을 주장한다. 이러한 선택적 처리는 국민의 기본적 권리 확대를 위한 측면에서도 바람직할 것이라 생각되며, 발치한 치아에 대한 일률적인 폐기처리에서 오는 자원의 낭비나 환경오염 유발을 방지할 수 있고, 개인의 신체를 이탈한 물건에 대한 사적 소유권 보장과 정신적 만족도를 제고 시킬 수 있다고 생각된다. This thesis’s important material is a extracted tooth and provisions of the Wastes Disposal Law. In this thesis, author review the meaning of the law provisions, the nature of a thing and the nature of property, and review balancing the interests between public interests and private interests, and it’s selection, afterward author suggests a resonable solution about related problems. In a specific situation when arise collisions between public interests and private interests, it needs a effective standard for resolve problems and use that standard, balance two interests, and must select more resonable interests, at last, we may choose the principle of proportionality in public law for the purpose of balancing interests. In addition to above point, as suggested case in this thesis, even though a extracted tooth seems like a mere thing, but if we consider that it is very close to citizen’s day life, this thesis itself has some value in review. In specific case that this thesis suggested in introduction, we are trouble that we must select which one between public interests for national disposal wastes and private interests for- the private rights. In thesis author persist that, about disposal method for the extracted tooth in dental clinic, prior to disposal the tooth for waste, dental clinic must ask to patient that he want his own tooth or not, in that case, if the patient want his extracted tooth, dental clinic perform proper disinfect and issue it for patient, so in this thesis author persist that it need a legislative measures for protect private rights. Through these selective disposal for extracted tooth, we can more magnitude citizen’s fundamental rights, and can avoid waste of resource or control environmental pollution, moreover through the remodel institution, we can more build up private ownership and mental contentment for a seceded thing from one’s body.

利益衡量의 입장에서 바라본 행정법 : 無瑕疵裁量行使請求權 및 申請權

이비안(Rhee Vian) 부산대학교 법학연구소 2012 법학연구 Vol.53 No.1

최근 행정법에서는 이익형량을 화두로 하여 기존의 이론을 되짚어 보아야 한다는 논의가 적지 아니하다. 헌법은 국민이 누릴 수 있는 기본권을 규정하고 있다. 사인의 이익, 즉, 사익이란 그 어떤 것이든 헌법상 기본권에 포섭될 수 있다. 그러한 측면에서 보면 모든 사익이 보호대상이 될 수 있다 보아야 하는지 여부에 대한 의문이 발생할 수 있다. 그러나 익히 예상할 수 있다시피, 사익 상호간의 충돌문제, 한정된 자원 문제 등으로 인하여 그는 불가능하다. 그 결과 헌법상 기본권은 그 자체 집행가능한 권리라 볼 수 없는 경우가 적지 아니하다. 더 나아가 이른바 사회권적 기본권의 중요성으로 말미암아 사익의 충돌 및 한정된 자원 문제가 일상화된 상황이라면 사익들 사이의 상충 문제를 이익형량을 통하여 우선적으로 실현되어야 할 기본권이 무엇인지 여부를 판단하고 그를 집행하는 것이 국가의 중요한 업무라 볼 수 있기도 하다. 이렇게 기본권 사이의 이익형량 업무를 국가의 중요 기능 중 하나로 보는 경우 당해 이익형량의 일반·추상적 기준은 立法이 마련함이 당연하다. 헌법은 보호하여야 할 기본권을 나열하고 있을 뿐이다. 그러므로 입법이 그 우선 실현 순서를 지정하는 역할을 맡지 아니하면 아니된다. 그러나 각 기본권 주체들 간의 기본권 충돌이 일상화된 지금 입법이 이익형량 기준을 마련하여야 하는 장소를 미리 예견하여 일반·추상적으로 완벽하게 입법하는 것은 거의 불가능한 지경에 이르고 있다. 이는 흔히 입법의 완전무결성 가정의 파괴 현상이라 불리고 있는데, 그를 전제로 하는 종래의 법치주의가 제대로 작동할 수 없는 중요한 원인이 되고 있다. 이러한 현상 하에서 입법이 그의 업무를 放棄하지 아니하고자 하는 마지막 보루가 불확정개념 및 재량규정의 사용이다. 그런데 재량규정의 경우 종전부터 개인적 공권 내지 원고적격을 인정할 수 있는지 여부에 대한 논란이 적지 아니하였고, 그러한 차원에서 무하자재량행사청구권이 그 존재의 근거를 찾기 시작하였다. 그러나 현재에 와서는 무하자재량행사청구권을 굳이 인정할 필요성이 있는지 여부에 대하여 논란이 적지 아니한 상황이다. 특히 행정법 전반을 개념법학이 아닌 이익법학적 관점에서 되짚어 볼 때 그러한 경향이 더 강하게 작용할 수 있는 여지가 발생한다. 어쨌든, 입법이 완벽하게 이익형량의 기준을 마련해 주지 못하는 상황 속에서 개별적 사안에 당하여 어떻게 구체타당한 결론을 얻어 낼 것인가라는 점이 논의의 중심적 과제가 되어야 한다. 그러한 관점에서 본다면 종래의 공권, 재량행위, 불확정개념, 행정입법 등 관련 행정법 일반이론 분야의 기존 논의를 재해석할 필요성이 없지 아니하고, 무하자재량행사청구권, 그 인접 개념으로서의 신청권도 그 예외가 아니다. 결론적으로 이익형량의 입장에서 살펴볼 때 굳이 무하자재량행사청구권이나 신청권이라는 개념을 인정할 필요가 없을 것이다. 위 두 개념이 원고적격 인정 문제 때문에 발생한 것이라면 원고적격을 공권이 인정될 가능성으로 해석하는 한 실체적 권리가 있음을 주장하는 것으로 충분하고 굳이 무하자재량행사청구권 등 개념을 만들어 낼 필요는 없다. 기타의 측면에서도 별다른 효용성이 발견되지 아니한다. 'Interests-balance theory' has been dealt with in the administrative law and some suggest that the existing theory of the administrative law should be re-reviewed based on interests-balance. The Constitutional law provides interests which an individual could enjoy. There are a number of private interests. Could all private interests of the Constitutional law be protected? As speculated easily, the answer is "no" because of conflicts between private interests and limited resources. If so, the duty of State is to identify interests which the laws should protect and then to enact and enforce these statutes. With no doubt, the legislative has the authority to establish the general standard of balancing interests. It is the duty of National Assembly. However, it is impossible to speculate all possible situations which need interests-balance, thereby not providing one-fit-all standards. This is called "destruction of legislative impeccability". It also one of major reasons to make the existing rule of law unworkable. Amorphous concepts and delegation were created for the legislative not to give up its duty. There has been a dispute of whether the statute of providing administrative discretion allows standing against governments. Except abuse of discretion, discretion committed to administrative governments could not be subject to judicial review. In order to expand judicial review on this discretion, Korea created "the right to resonable discretion", which requires administrative governments to exercise their discretion without fault. Now, some argue that the right to reasonable discretion does not need to exist. Particularly, if the administrative law is considered from the view of interests-balance not Begriffsjurisprudenz, there is no need of the right to reasonable discretion. This paper comes to the conclusion that 'the right to reasonable discretion' and 'the right to reply' do not need to exist in Korea when these rights are considered from the view interests-balance. The two rights were created for standing. However, if standing was interpreted to mean 'possibility of legal interest,' the right to reasonable discretion and the right to reply become unworkable.

기본권 제한 심사에서 공익의 식별

이민열 한국법철학회 2015 법철학연구 Vol.18 No.2

In the constitutional case where violation of basic rights is questioned, objects of balancing should be identified before interest balancing. If that identification is wrongly done, than whole interest balancing goes wrong. Misbalancing happens not only when interest that should be considered is omitted, but also when interest is counted as something which is entitled to be weighted even though it is not. And what needs particular attention is the danger of counting something as public interest when there is not really interest that satisfy the condition of ‘public interest’. To avoid this danger, The definite description theory of Bertrand Russell is very useful, because the theory analyses underlying structure of denoting phrase which seems on its surface form to denote something really exist, and because it can help to avoid logical fallacy which can easily committed when we use concepts relating to public interest. The logical analysis of a statement about public interest shows that the following identification process is necessary. First, the kinds and the ranges of interests pursued by a given legislation should be identified in comparison with alternative legislations or alternative state of affairs. Second, that interest should satisfy following three negative condition to be public interest. (i) It is not based on unconstitutional value. (ii) It is not insulated from basic right holders’ interest. (iii) It does not favor only some of members of the state. This identification can be performed in any steps of scrutiny when necessary and appropriate, before actual balancing begins. The systematic clarification of public interest identification can be helpful in pointing out whether a particular balancing is unadequately done, and in providing sound ground of balancing. Because this method provides a way to coordinate interests in the same category and abstraction level, namely of common interests of all individuals. 기본권 제한 심사에서 법익 형량을 하기 위해서는 형량될 대상이 먼저 고정되어야 한다. 즉, 형량 식별이 먼저 이루어져야 한다. 형량 대상이 잘못 식별되었을 때는 잘못된 형량(誤衡量)을 하게 된다. 특히 공익 개념을 단순히 언급함으로써 실제로는 공익에 해당하지 않는 것을 무분별하게 공익으로 포함시킬 위험이 크다. 이러한 위험을 방지하기 위해 러셀(Russell)의 확정기술이론에 의거한 분석이 매우 유용하다. 왜냐하면 그 이론은 표면적으로는 ‘공익’처럼 무언가를 지시하는 것처럼 보이는 개념이나 구(句)의 심층적인 논리적 구조를 밝혀 논리적 오류를 범하지 않도록 해 주기 때문이다. ‘법률 X의 공익 I는 이 사건에서 형량대상이다’라는 진술을 논리적으로 분석해 보면 다음과 같은 두 단계의 식별 과정이 필요함을 알 수 있다. 우선, 그 입법의 대안과 비교해서 해당 입법이 추가적으로 달성하는 이익 범위를 지목한다. 그 다음으로, 그렇게 지목된 범위의 이익이 공익의 요건에 부합하는지 검토한다. 그 요건은 소극적인 것 세 가지로, ‘위헌적인 가치를 갖는 이익이 아닐 것, 기본권 주체의 이익과 절연된 이익이 아닐 것, 일부 구성원들을 편드는 것이 아닐 것’이다. 이러한 식별은 법익을 형량하기 전에 이루어져야 한다. 정확한 공익 식별은 시작부터 잘못된 형량의 위험을 걸러내 줄 뿐만 아니라, 모든 기본권 주체의 공통된 이익이라는 하나의 통일된 관점에서 법익 형량이 체계적으로 수행될 수 있는 기반을 제공한다.

이익균형 관점으로 본 개성공단사업의 지속성

김민정 ( Min Jeoung Kim ),전금림 ( Kum Lim Jeon ) 단국대학교 분쟁해결연구센터 2012 분쟁해결연구 Vol.10 No.1

This article is an effort to understand how Gaeseong Industrial Complex (GIC), an economic collaboration between South and North Korea, not only survived conflicts and tensions between two Koreas for almost a decade, but also steadily grew in number of employees, operating firms, and revenue. The uniqueness of its success can be explained when the Balance of Interests Theory is applied to the case of GIC. There are three points to be satisfied in order to achieve the balance of interests for both parties involved; coinciding interests, nonintersecting interests, and mutually exclusive interests. First, the economic boost GIC brought to North Korea rewarded both Koreas by providing jobs and hard currency for North Korea. This also reduced the amount of expenses going into reunification efforts for South Korea. The economic benefits here are one example of fulfilling the coinciding interests. Secondly, the GIC leaves the door open for North Korea for international trade. Lee Myung-Bak``s government also sees an opportunity to test whether it is possible to establish an open and honest relationship with North Korea. The transparency and trust will pave the way for reunification. Thirdly, in discussion of mutually exclusive interests, the GIC can impose a threat to both Koreas. Among them, the capitalist influence has the potential to disrupt long-standing communist system in North Korea. Despite these issues, two Koreas seem to agree on the fact that benefits outweigh potential harm. It is clear that the balance of interest for two sides should be maintained in order to succeed. In this perspective, the GIC will provide a gauge for future projects.

이익형량에 대한 환원주의적인 접근의 사례: 미국의 단계심사와 한국의 과잉금지 원칙

박경신 한국법철학회 2008 법철학연구 Vol.11 No.1

This paper analyzes the American multi-tiered scrutiny used in constitutional review and compares to the Korean constitutional principle of proportionality. The multi-tiered scrutiny of a state action is conducted in a manner that, as the private interest infringed by that state action becomes greater, the greater the public interest the state action is required to accomplish. This relationship corresponds to one of the four elements of the Korean principle of proportionality, namely that of the balancing of interests. Also, the multi-tiered scrutiny requires a greater means-ends fit as the greater private interest is at stake. This requirement of a means-ends fit corresponds to the appropriateness of means and the least restrictive means, the two other elements of the principle of proportionality, and enhances the likelihood that the public interest outweighs the private interest infringed, thereby supplementing the ultimate test of balancing. The requirement that the public interest be at minimum legitimate to ‘important’ or ‘compelling’ also makes sure that the balancing is conducted with respect to a public good as opposed to a public harm. The idea that constitutionality of a state action can be determined by balancing faces a criticism that the quantification of essentially abstract qualities cannot be accomplished in a consistent or binding manner. However, the stare decisis principle provides a comparative scheme where previous decisions provide a binding and consistent rule by which the interest-balancing can produce concrete results.

법에 있어서의 공익 ; 공익의 법문제화

최송화 ( Song Wha Choi ) 서울대학교 법학연구소 2006 서울대학교 법학 Vol.47 No.3

The concept of public interest has been a much frequented topic, and has been examined from a range of different perspectives. Academic discourse is based not only on legal views but also on philosophical, political, economic views. And these multi-disciplinary and interdisciplinary studies have advanced the legal concept of public interest. Even in the jurisprudence world, there is a wide range of views on the concept of public interest. In legal philosophy, understanding the relationship between a society and individuals as well as restricting individual rights in the light of the public interest is very important issue. Even in the field of private law, background knowledge of the concept of public interest is a norm in interpreting private contracts. Moreover, the concept of public interest has become a core concept in administrative law theories (Rechtsdogmatik). I have considered public interest theories in the field of administrative law as the Meta-Administrative law theories. This is why I have made efforts to understand the concept in a more relevant way in administrative law during my tenure of professorship. The concept of public interest is a value concept, having many contentions around it. For example, whose interest is the public interest? Who should decide the public interest? Are public interest concepts in many societal spheres different from the state interest? Will we be able to find the normative concept of public interest and follow it or should we make choices based on our preferences? These are the questions that I had in my mind and in order to answer them, we should first look at historical development of the concept. Until the Korean Civil Uprising of 1987 and following democratization of the nation, the public interest had been an ideological concept to justify governmental activities rather than a legal concept that requires reasoning. However, subsequently, small group identities have spread among the Korean people in response to the development of democracy. There has been no unitary understanding of the public interest concept since then. Under the circumstances, lawyers should analyze the concept of public interest in their legal reasoning. Also, public interest has become a legal topos and a general principle of administrative law in deciding legitimacy of administrative actions. Therefore, argumentation of the public interest is a problem of not only the Administration but also the Legislature and the Judiciary. The legislature has to prescribe legislative clauses in a concrete way in terms of the concept of public interest. It should prepare a standard for balancing conflicting interests in confirming the public interest. Also, it should design the process of confirming public interests as a justifying procedure. The Judiciary should change the process of confirming public interests as a justifying procedure as well. It needs to shift its reviewing points from content legitimacy to procedural legitimacy in decision-making process. Moreover, it should analyze multi-dimensional mechanisms of interests in terms of confirming relevant public interests. Finally, it should systematize standards for balancing conflicting interests. The paradigm shift of public administration is an on-going process. `Deregulation`, `reinventing government` and `outsourcing` have been changing the process of public decision-making. However, in the process, only the efficiency and utility factors are being emphasized while democratic values, fundamental human rights and rule of law are sometimes left out. We have to develop more relevant legal argument based on the concept of public interest in order to protect the basic values of public law. I hope today`s discourse will contribute to the legal argumentation of the public interest and the effective resolution of contemporary interest conflicts.

법령의 개폐와 신뢰보호원칙에 대한 사법적 심사기준의 변화 ― 미국연방대법원 Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, 591 U.S. (2020)판결과 한국법상 신뢰보호원칙 ―

김용민 미국헌법학회 2022 미국헌법연구 Vol.33 No.3

In the U.S. Government’s view, DACA recipients have no “legally cognizable reliance interests” because the DACA Memorandum stated that the program “conferred no substantive rights” and provided benefits only in two-year increments. But the Government did not cite any legal authority establishing that such features automatically preclude reliance interests. These disclaimers are surely pertinent in considering the strength of any reliance interests, but that consideration must be undertaken by the agency in the first instance, subject to normal APA review. There was no such consideration in the Governmental Memorandum. Respondents assert that there was much for DHS to consider. They stress that, since 2012, DACA recipients have “enrolled in degree programs, embarked on careers, started businesses, purchased homes, and even married and had children, all in reliance” on the DACA program. But nothing about the governmental decision foreclosed or even addressed the options of retaining forbearance or accommodating particular reliance interests. The Government should have considered those matters but did not. That failure was arbitrary and capricious in violation of the APA. Korean Supreme Court and Constitutional Court are also examining the complex and multifaceted interests that may arise due to the revision or repeal of laws and regulations. Now it is necessary to apply more expanded examination standards, to reconcile conflicting interests in the drafting of laws and decision-making process as if administrative plans are presented. It can be pointed out that the bilateral trust protection is inappropriate to apply to the issue of balancing multilateral interests. Meanwhile, in the process of establishing and deciding an administrative plan, the fact that numerous conflicts of public and private interests can occur, means that there are many stakeholders centered on the administrative plan. It should be recognized that, without being limited to the plan, legislators and administrative agencies have broad shaping powers over legislation and administrative actions and the so called “balancing oder”(Abwägungsgebot) may have general relevance in matters of regulating the interests of multiple stakeholders. This is because the “balancing oder” can be applied as a strict scrutiny standard that is more reasonable, fair and just, and is required to make an rational decision that is easily convincing and acceptable to the public.

Sources of Trade Balance Dynamics in Korea

김지운,유종민 한국무역학회 2022 Journal of Korea trade Vol.26 No.2

Purpose – This study quantifies sources of trade balance dynamics over the business cycle in Korea. Specifically, we quantify the relative importance of domestic and foreign factors on trade balance dynamics using a small open economy real business cycle (SOE-RBC) model and provide policy implications for stabilization policies. Aggregate productivity and interest rate spreads are considered domestic factors affecting the trade balance. A world interest rate (the U.S. interest rate) is considered a foreign factor. Design/methodology – Following Neumeyer and Perri (2005), we build the SOE-RBC model with three types of shocks: aggregate productivity, interest rate spread, and world interest shocks. The model is estimated by the generalized method of moments (GMM) using relevant business cycle statistics. The estimated model is used for quantifying the relative importance of domestic and foreign factors on trade balance dynamics in Korea. Findings – Our main findings can be summarized as follows: 85.64% of the trade balance fluctuations in Korea are explained by domestic factors, the remaining 14.35% by foreign factors. Particularly, trade balance dynamics are mostly accounted for by the change in aggregate productivity shocks (85.58%). World interest rate shocks considerably explain trade balance (14.35%), whereas the role of interest rate spread shocks that represent domestic risks is limited (0.08%). Although aggregate productivity is key in explaining trade balance dynamics in Korea, interest rates still have an essential role. This is because aggregate productivity changes induce interest rate spread variations and, thus, the trade balance significantly. The results suggest that government policies mitigating fluctuations in aggregate productivity would be effective for stabilization policies in Korea by reducing the trade balance volatility. Originality/value – Existing studies on the emerging market business cycle examine mostly Latin American countries, and the main object of the studies is the volatility of consumption rather than trade balance dynamics. Conversely, our study examines Korea rather than Latin American countries. Additionally, we examine sources of trade balance dynamics, which are relatively more important in Korea, rather than those of the volatility of consumption. Hence, we estimate the model to explicitly match moments related to trade balance in the data.

공법상 당사자소송과 공공의 이익- 대법원 2023. 6. 29. 선고 2021다250025 판결에 대한 판례평석 -

김경준 부산대학교 법학연구소 2025 법학연구 Vol.66 No.1

This judicial precedent presented the criteria for determining a contract under public law, emphasizing the circumstances surrounding the contract’s formation and the public interest, the provisions of the contract under public law, and the substance of the dispute. In particular, the precedent is notable for suggesting a balance of interests between the public benefit sought under the relevant provisions and the private interests obtained by the parties through the contract under public law as a criterion for evaluating the substance of the dispute. Additionally, the court held that disputes concerning the existence and scope of obligations, such as the return of settlement amounts under the contract, should, in principle, be brought as administrative litigation (specifically, party litigation). When synthesizing these findings, it is significant that lawsuits regarding the existence and scope of performance obligations based on the contract under public law should be reviewed in party litigation, balancing the public interest under relevant laws and the private interests of the parties involved in the contract under public law. This significance can be further analyzed by dividing it into the procedural requirements for litigation and the substantive adjudication aspects. However, as a preliminary discussion for this analysis, Article 27 of General Act on Public Administration may be considered as a normative basis for determining a contract under public law. Since Article 27 requires consideration of public interest in the content of contracts under public law, it can serve as a normative basis for balancing public and private interests in disputes concerning contracts under public law. From the perspective of procedural requirements, the subject matter of party litigation in administrative law becomes an issue. At first glance, claims based on contracts under public law(the existence and scope of performance obligations) may be viewed as the subject matter of litigation. In this case, the question arises as to whether the right in question constitutes a public-law right, which could be addressed by applying the theory of subjective public rights from appeals suit of administrative litigation. If subjective public rights theory is applied, the plaintiff's claim based on a contract under public law may, in certain cases, fall under public rights through the protective norm theory. If so, the scope of the claim must be clarified through a balancing of public and private interests. Furthermore, if the claim qualifies as a public right, standing to sue should be recognized based on the plaintiff's allegations, and if standing to sue is recognized, jurisdiction should also be affirmed. From the perspective of substantive adjudication, it is necessary to examine the implications of balancing public and private interests in administrative party litigation regarding claims based on contracts under public law in relation to the principle of disposition. When asserting a claim based on a contract under public law, courts should not be bound solely by the scope of the plaintiff's claim but should be able to determine the appropriate scope of the claim. The precedent in question also appears to have treated the existence and scope of performance obligations as the subject matter of litigation. This approach is significant in that courts, through balancing public and private interests, may determine the appropriate scope of a claim based on contracts under public law, which are public-law rights, even considering the possibility of awarding an amount exceeding what the plaintiff originally claimed.

利益衡量의 입장에서 바라본 행정법

이비안(Rhee, V-An) 동아대학교 법학연구소 2012 東亞法學 Vol.- No.54

최근 행정법에서는 이익형량을 화두로 하여 기존의 이론을 되짚어 보아야 한다는 논의가 적지 아니하다. 헌법은 국민이 누릴 수 있는 기본권을 규정하고 있다. 사인의 이익, 즉, 사익이란 그 어떤 것이든 헌법상 기본권에 포섭될 수 있다. 그러한 측면에서 보면 모든 사익이 보호대상이 될 수 있다 보아야 하는지 여부에 대한 의문이 발생할 수 있다. 그러나 익히 예상할 수 있다시피, 사익 상호간의 충돌문제, 한정된 자원 문제 등으로 인하여 그는 불가능하다. 그 결과 헌법상 기본권은 그 자체 집행가능한 권리라 볼 수 없는 경우가 적지 아니하다. 더 나아가 사익의 충돌 및 한정된 자원 문제가 일상화된 상황이라면 기본권 주체들의 사익들 사이의 상충 문제를 이익형량을 통하여 우선적으로 실현되어야 하는 기본권이 무엇인지 여부를 판단하고 그를 집행하는 것이 국가의 중요한 업무라 볼 수 있기도 하다. 이렇게 기본권 사이의 이익형량 업무를 국가의 중요 기능 중 하나로 보는 경우 당해 이익형량의 일반추상적 기준은 立法이 마련함이 당연하다. 헌법은 보호하여야 할 기본권을 나열하고 있을 뿐이다. 그러므로 입법이 그 우선 실현 순서를 지정하는 역할을 맡지 아니하면 아니된다. 그러나 각 기본권 주체들 간의 기본권 충돌이 일상화된 지금 입법이 이익형량 기준을 마련하여야 하는 장소를 미리 예견하여 일반추상적으로 완벽하게 입법하는 것은 거의 불가능한 지경에 이르고 있다. 이는 흔히 입법의 완전무결성 가정의 파괴 현상이라 불리고 있는데, 그를 전제로 하는 종래의 법치주의가 제대로 작동할 수 없는 중요한 원인이 되고 있다. 이러한 입법의 완전무결성의 파괴현상 아래에서-즉 입법이 완벽하게 이익형량의 기준을 마련해 주지 못하는 곳에서-개별적인 사안에 당하여 구체타당한 결론을 어떻게 얻어 낼 것인가라는 점이 행정법의 중심적 화두이다. 공권, 재량행위, 불확정개념, 행정입법 등 거의 모든 행정법 일반이론 분야의 논의가 위 화두를 중심으로 움직일 수밖에 없기도 하다. 그러한 측면에서 이 글은 종래의 공권이론에 논의를 집중하여 현재까지의 논의내용을 재분석하여 보았다. With the start of “Interests balance” in the recent administrative law, many scholars argue about the needs of reconsidering the existing theories on public rights. Since limited resources have aggravated conflicts between interests, the prior duty of governments is to identify “fundamental interests” which should be protected. Congress should identify these fundamental interests and legislate a law. Therefore, the law should provide general and abstract standards of balancing concerned interests. However, it is impossible for Congress to provide standards suitable for all possible cases which need interest balances. Thereby, limited functions of legislation has threatened “rule of law”. Where the law could not provide perfect or at least appropriate standards of balancing interests, how could legitimate and reasonable decisions be made for each individual case? Particularly, the public rights (standing) is in the center of the administrative law. This paper tried to review the existing theories of public rights in the view of “interests balance”. Regardless of how far results of reviewing the theories could deviate from existing arguments, it is clear that an interests balance approach helps beginners to identify and understand merits and demerits of the existing theories on the public rights. In addition, it seems to be meaningful to review whole systems of the administrative law from an aspect of interests balance.