주지하듯이 판례는 당대의 시대상을 보여준다. 2011년도의 일본은 유독 주민소송에 관한 판례가 많다. 2010년도의 경우에도 주민소송사건이 적은 것은 아니었는데 이와 같이 주민소송 사건이 많다는 사실은 자치행정에 대한 민주적 통제가 중시되고 있음을 의미하며 높은 주민의식을 엿볼 수 있다. 자치단체에 불리하게 체결된 임대계약의 취소를 구하는 주민소송, 부정한 수단으로 사회복지사업자 지정을 받은 자에게 지급된 지원금의 반환을 구하는 주민소송 등 자치행정에 대한 주민들의 감시는 집요하다. 그러나 본문에서는 주민소송에 관하여 행정위원회 위원에 대한 월급보수의 위법문제만을 다룬다. 특정 분야에 치우치지 않고 행정법의 전분야에서 고르게 판례의 동향을 살피기 위한 것이다. 주민소송에 관한 사건 외에는 행정절차법상의 이유부기에 관한 사건, 정보공개법상의 비공개대상정보의 판단에 관한 사건, 지방자치단체가 수행하던 노인복지시설의 민영화와 관련하여 통지의 처분성이 다투어진 사건, 지방자치단체가 소송을 수행함에 있어서 지방의회가 동의하지 않는 경우의 법률문제들을 다룬다. 또한 하급심이기는 하지만 음주운전 동승자의 책임에 관하여 내려진 흥미로운 판결도 소개한다. 사실관계와 판결이유를 정확히 전달하기 위하여 가급적 상세한 소개를 염두에 두다보니 지면관계상 다룰 수 있는 판례가 한정적일 수밖에 없었다. 그러나 이상의 6건의 판례를 통하여 일본의 최고법원이 여론에 흔들리지 않고 법리에 충실한 소신 있는 판단을 내리고 있음을 엿볼 수 있었으며 우리의 사법부에게도 시사하는 점이 있다고 생각된다. 특히 이유부기사건의 경우에는 누구라도 면허취소가 당연한 것이라고 생각되는 와중에도 이유부기가 충분하지 않음을 이유로 원고의 청구를 받아들인 최고법원의 태도는 행정절차의 중요성을 새삼 강조한 주목할 만한 판례라 생각된다.

The precedents show us the phases of the times, as we know. There were many precedents on the residents lawsuit in Japan last year. The fact that a large number of residents lawsuits are filed means the strong democratic control on the local government. We can see higher interest of Japanese citizens in their local autonomy. Autonomous administration monitoring by citizens is tenacious. This paper, however, deals with the case of illegality of monthly pay to the members of administrative commission among lots of cases on the residents lawsuits. It is because that the paper tries to oversee the trend of the judicial precedents without leaning to certain fields of administrative law. In addition to the residents lawsuit case above, cases such as the obligation to adduce reasons in the Administrative Procedures Act, decision of the exemption to disclosure in the Public Information Act, the possibility to revoke administrative notification related to privatization of welfare facility for the elderly carried out by municipality, the possibility for local government to carry out litigations in spite of the opposition of the local council, the responsibility of the passenger who are not driver but only riding in the car being driven under the influence of alcohol, are introduced and analyzed a little. The case on the responsibility of the passenger is very interesting albeit lower court ruling. For lack of space, only 6 precedents could be dealt with in this paper. Although the small number of cases are introduced, we can understand through these several cases that Japanese Supreme Court reach a verdict faithful to the legal principles without swaying by public opinion. It is suggestive in our judiciary. The case on the obligation to give reasons for the unfavorable disposition, in particular, is notable precedent which emphasized anew the importance of administrative procedure.

The precedents show us the phases of the times, as we know. There were many precedents on the residents lawsuit in Japan last year. The fact that a large number of residents lawsuits are filed means the strong democratic control on the local government. We can see higher interest of Japanese citizens in their local autonomy. Autonomous administration monitoring by citizens is tenacious. This paper, however, deals with the case of illegality of monthly pay to the members of administrative commission among lots of cases on the residents lawsuits. It is because that the paper tries to oversee the trend of the judicial precedents without leaning to certain fields of administrative law. In addition to the residents lawsuit case above, cases such as the obligation to adduce reasons in the Administrative Procedures Act, decision of the exemption to disclosure in the Public Information Act, the possibility to revoke administrative notification related to privatization of welfare facility for the elderly carried out by municipality, the possibility for local government to carry out litigations in spite of the opposition of the local council, the responsibility of the passenger who are not driver but only riding in the car being driven under the influence of alcohol, are introduced and analyzed a little. The case on the responsibility of the passenger is very interesting albeit lower court ruling. For lack of space, only 6 precedents could be dealt with in this paper. Although the small number of cases are introduced, we can understand through these several cases that Japanese Supreme Court reach a verdict faithful to the legal principles without swaying by public opinion. It is suggestive in our judiciary. The case on the obligation to give reasons for the unfavorable disposition, in particular, is notable precedent which emphasized anew the importance of administrative procedure.

obligation to adduce reasons for unfavorable disposition, exemption to disclosure, revocation of notification, administrative offence to aid drunk driving, administrative commission