공익신고자보호법 상 공익침해행위에 대한 입법론 및 유추적용 -대법원 2020. 3. 26. 선고 2019두61052 판결을 중심으로- (Solutions When the Analogical Application Becomes an Issue on the Public Interest Infringement-Related Laws for the Compensation Under the Public Interest Reporter Protection Act - Focusing on the Sup)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 전북대학교 부설법학연구소
· 수록지 정보 : 법학연구 / 64권 / 145 ~ 170페이지
· 저자명 : 지희정

초록

공익신고자보호법 제2조에는 별표에 규정된 공익침해행위 대상법률 위반행위를 공익침해행위로 보고 공익침해행위가 발생하였거나 발생할 우려가 있다는 사실을 신고하는 행위를 공익신고로 보는 열거주의를 취하고 있다. 그런데, 공익신고자보호법 별표에 규정되어 있는 “공익침해행위 대상법률” 위반행위는 아니나 이러한 행위와 동일한 사실관계에 근거한 다른 법률 위반행위로 인해 국가의 수입 회복 등이 있는 경우 공익침해행위 대상법률 위반행위와 기초적으로 동일한 사실관계에 근거하고 있다는 이유로 공익신고자보호법 상 보상금 지급조항을 유추적용하여 보상금이 지급되어야 하는지가 문제된다. 공익신고자보호법 상 보상금 제도는 공익신고를 활성화하기 위해 도입된 수혜적, 잠정적 제도로서 입법부의 입법형성의 자유가 인정된다. 입법자는 “공익침해행위 대상법률” 위반행위를 공익신고의 대상으로 규정하는 열거주의를 택하였는데, 열거주의는 포괄주의에 비해 법적 안정성, 법적용의 간이성, 국민의 수용성 관점에서 장점이 있어 타당하다고 보여지므로 입법자의 의도를 훼손하지 않는 범위 내에서 해석되어야 한다. 또한, 해당 법률조항을 자세히 살펴보면 공익침해행위 대상법률 위반행위와 동일한 사실관계에 근거한 다른 법률 위반행위인지 여부에 대해 확실히 판단하기 어려울 수 있고, 법률조항의 유추적용은 법률의 명확성 원칙에 반하므로, 대상판결의 1심인 서울행정법원 2019. 5. 23. 선고 2018구합66340 판결처럼 공익신고자보호법 상 보상금 지급결정에서 공익침해행위 대상법률을 유추적용하여 보상금 지급범위를 넓히는 것은 지양하고, 공익침해행위에 대해 열거주의를 취함으로서 오는 문제점은 공익침해행위 대상법률의 개수를 신속하게 증감시키는 법 개정으로 해결해야 할 것이다.

영어초록

After the Public Interest Reporter Protection Act enacted on March 29, 2011 as the need for the compensation arose to protect public interest reporters against any unfavorable measures likely being given when workers at private sector other than public organizations found and reported the internal corruptions or illegal acts infringing public interest, and to promote public interest reports, it has been in effect since September 29, 2011, while developing through six times of revisions up to now.
As for which public interest reports are the subject of the protection or the compensation under the Public Interest Reporter Protection Act, the second clause of Article 2 of the same Act stipulates that it is the act to report a fact that any "public interest infringement" has occurred or is likely to occur, so that it is important what "the public interest infringement" is, and the Public Interest Reporter Protection Act takes the positive system, which regards the infringement against "the laws prescribed in the annexed list" as the public interest infringement.
However, it is questionable whether or not the compensation should be paid by analogical application of the compensation clause in the Public Interest Reporter Protection Act on the grounds that it is basically based on the same fact as the infringement against public interest infringement-related laws, when any recovery of national income occurred due to infringement of other laws based on the same fact as such act, even though it does not come under that kind of infringement against "the public interest infringement-related laws" prescribed in the annex list to the Public Interest Reporter Protection Act. From the reporter's point of view, it is difficult to know about what kind of infringement it is before the public interest report is done, and the reporter may regard that it should be against fairness if the compensation depends on whether or not the report comes under an infringement against "the public interest infringement-related laws".
However, the compensation system under the Public Interest Reporter Protection Act is a beneficial system introduced particularly for the promotion of public interest report, where it is allowed to let the legislature have a wide range of free will in legislating, and the lawmaker specified the infringement against "public interest infringement-related laws" prescribed in the annex list to the Public Interest Reporter Protection Act as the public interest infringement, that is the subject of public interest report, in consideration of the legal stability and the easiness in interpretation and application of the law, as well as the national acceptance regarding the scope of "the public interest report", and looking into the provisions of the relevant Act in details, it may happen such cases difficult to decide on whether or not they are infringements against other laws based on the same fact relevance as the infringement against public interest infringement-related laws, so that it is believed that expanding the scope of compensation as applied by the analogical interpretation of public interest infringement-related laws like the Seoul Administrative Court Decision No. 2018guhap66340 adjudged on May 23, 2019 as the verdict of the first trial in the relevant case should be refrained.

참고자료

· 없음