The Constitutional Court or other courts recognize the National Assembly’s duty to legislate very rigorously. Based on the principle of separation of powers, it accentuates discretion or autonomy of the assembly. However, under the current democratic system, the legislation of the National Assembly in fluences the national policy more, so it is needed to recognize the National Assembly’s duty to legislate more actively. When most of people want to know illegal acts of the country and make the government compensate for the damages of victims, the National Assembly, the organization representing the public, is required to legislate. This study analyzed 3 cases (2 lower court decisions and 1 Supreme Court decision), which urged the National Assembly to legislate, and it also investigated into the Special Act on the Refundment, etc. of School Site Acquisition Charges based on the decision of the Constitutional Court. When the National Assembly fails to pass urgent bills or neglects the demands of the public, it is necessary to amend the Constitutional Law or the National Assembly law to prioritize urgent bills. Moreover, the Constitutional court and other subordinate courts also need to take up apositive attitude injudging the necessity. By doing so, legislators will be able to exert the freedom of legislation more actively, as the ones to interpret the meaning of the Constitution. Moreover, it will also contribute to achieving the duty to monitor and amend laws. In the same context, the Special Act on the Refundment, etc. of School Site Acquisition Charges will set a great example to the National Assembly, in terms of recognizing the active performance of duty to legislate.
Ⅱ. 사례 검토
1. 서울지법 남부지원 1999.2.25. 선고98가합15904판결
2. 인천지법 2006.11.2. 선고 2006가합3895 판결
3. 대법원 2008.5.29. 선고 2004다33469 판결