• 검색어에 아래의 연산자를 사용하시면 더 정확한 검색결과를 얻을 수 있습니다.
  • 검색연산자
검색연산자 기능 검색시 예
() 우선순위가 가장 높은 연산자 예1) (나노 (기계 | machine))
공백 두 개의 검색어(식)을 모두 포함하고 있는 문서 검색 예1) (나노 기계)
예2) 나노 장영실
| 두 개의 검색어(식) 중 하나 이상 포함하고 있는 문서 검색 예1) (줄기세포 | 면역)
예2) 줄기세포 | 장영실
! NOT 이후에 있는 검색어가 포함된 문서는 제외 예1) (황금 !백금)
예2) !image
* 검색어의 *란에 0개 이상의 임의의 문자가 포함된 문서 검색 예) semi*
"" 따옴표 내의 구문과 완전히 일치하는 문서만 검색 예) "Transform and Quantization"
쳇봇 이모티콘
ScienceON 챗봇입니다.
궁금한 것은 저에게 물어봐주세요.

논문 상세정보

개정된 국가공무원법 제80조의 위헌·위법여부에 대한 법리적 검토 - 정직 및 강등처분의 효력을 중심으로

Judicial review of revised the national public service law

법학연구 v.57 no.3 , 2016년, pp.63 - 89  

The article 80 of the National Public Service Law was revised on 24 December, 2015. According to the revision, an officer who is submitted to the demotion or suspension as a disciplinary punishment will receive nothing for his salary. Before the revision, the officer could receive 1/3 of his salary. The reason for this revision was set out to solve some problem. The problem was that the officer being in disciplinary punishment received a fractional salary without service. The stated reason is easy to understand. But there still remains some questions. How can he survive, when he takes the aforementioned disciplinary punishment and therefore receive nothing for his salary? Can this infringe on the right to lead a life worthy of human dignity guaranteed by the article 34 of the Constitutional Law? Actually, it is forbidden that more than half of the salary be seized under the Civil Execution Law to guarantee a minimal standard of livelihood of the debtor. Under the revised National Public Service Law, the officer can receive nothing for his salary and then he can‘t sustain his minimum standard of living. Of course, it is possible to criticize that this guarantee can't be accorded with the officer, because he is under special legal relationship. But the Constitutional Court sets a precedent that the article 34 of Constitutional Law guarantees every man the right to lead a life worthy of human dignity, and everyone can stand on his rights to maintain his minimum standard of livelihood. Of course, we must not overlook that the lawyer has legislative discretion. But, the legislative discretion must not be against the limit of intervention in basic rights guaranteed by the article 37-2 of Constitutional Law. As a result we can claim that the article 80 of the National Public Service Law is somewhat against the Constitutional Law. Besides, there are some judicial inconsistences by the methods of interpretation of law – teleological and systematic interpretation. All these lead to this conclusion that the revised article 80 of the National Public Service Law should be reconsidered.

참고문헌 (0)

  1. 이 논문의 참고문헌 없음

이 논문을 인용한 문헌 (0)

  1. 이 논문을 인용한 문헌 없음


원문 PDF 다운로드

  • KCI :

원문 URL 링크

  • 원문 URL 링크 정보가 존재하지 않습니다.
상세조회 0건 원문조회 0건

DOI 인용 스타일