
000 | 00000nam c2200205 c 4500 | |
001 | 000046000425 | |
005 | 20200914111141 | |
007 | ta | |
008 | 190926s2019 tjk MB 001c kor | |
020 | ▼a 9791165030025 ▼g 93360 | |
040 | ▼a 211009 ▼c 211009 ▼d 211009 | |
041 | 0 | ▼a kor ▼b eng |
082 | 0 4 | ▼a 342.519 ▼2 23 |
085 | ▼a 342.53 ▼2 DDCK | |
090 | ▼a 342.53 ▼b 2019z14 | |
100 | 1 | ▼a 정주백. ▼g 鄭柱白 |
245 | 1 0 | ▼a 평등정명론 / ▼d 정주백 |
246 | 0 | ▼i 한자표제: ▼a 平等正名論 |
260 | ▼a 대전 : ▼b 충남대학교출판문화원, ▼c 2019 ▼g (2020 2쇄) | |
300 | ▼a 389 p. ; ▼c 25 cm | |
500 | ▼a 부록: 혼돈에 빠진 평등론 | |
500 | ▼a 색인수록 | |
945 | ▼a KLPA |
소장정보
No. | 소장처 | 청구기호 | 등록번호 | 도서상태 | 반납예정일 | 예약 | 서비스 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
No. 1 | 소장처 중앙도서관/법학도서실(법학도서관 지하1층)/ | 청구기호 342.53 2019z14 | 등록번호 111815332 | 도서상태 대출가능 | 반납예정일 | 예약 | 서비스 |
No. 2 | 소장처 중앙도서관/법학도서실(법학도서관 지하1층)/ | 청구기호 342.53 2019z14 | 등록번호 511043098 | 도서상태 대출가능 | 반납예정일 | 예약 | 서비스 |
컨텐츠정보
책소개
헌법 제11조가 정하고 있는 ‘평등’이 무엇을 의미하는가를 다루는 책이다. 철학에서 사용하는 평등과 법학에서 사용하는 평등의 내용이 다를 수 있다. 헌법의 평등과 개별 법률의 평등도 그 내용이 다를 수 있다. 오로지 우리 헌법 제11조의 평등 문제만 다루었다. 막연하게 논하지 않고 구체적인 문제들을 염두에 두고 따져 보았다.
- 혼돈에 빠진 평등, 정명에 이르는 길!
- 혼돈에 빠진 평등, 평등을 구하는 새로운 생각
이 책은 우리 헌법 제11조가 정하고 있는 ‘평등’이 무엇을 의미하는가를 다루었다. 평등 문제를 철학적으로 다루지 않았다. 법 중에서도 우리 헌법이 정하고 있는 평등 문제만 다루었다. 철학에서 사용하는 평등과 법학에서 사용하는 평등의 내용이 다를 수 있다. 헌법의 평등과 개별 법률의 평등도 그 내용이 다를 수 있다. 이 책은 오로지 우리 헌법 제11조의 평등 문제만 다루었다. 막연하게 논하지 않고 구체적인 문제들을 염두에 두고 따져 보았다.
결과적으로 이 책은 기존의 학설과 판례와는 전혀 다른 결론에 도달했다. 기존의 학설과 판례가 아무런 의심 없이 받아들이는 상대적 평등설, 입법자 구속설, 예시적 열거설 등을 하나 하나 검토했다. 우리 헌법 상의 평등은 그렇게 이해되어질 수 없다.
우리 헌법상의 평등은 ‘성별’, ‘종교’, ‘사회적 신분’을 구별 표지(Merkmal)로 사용하는 것을 금하고 있을 뿐이다. 그렇게 이해하면 필요하고도 충분하게 우리 헌법상의 평등을 이해한 것이다. 이 뜻을 전하는데 40만자를 썼다.
정보제공 :

저자소개
목차
서문 ············································································································· 4 제1장 導入 I. 문제의 제기 ····························································································· 32 II. 개략적 논지 ··························································································· 41 1. 입법자 구속? ···························································································· 41 2. 상대적 평등설의 허구 ·············································································· 43 3. ‘같은 것은 같게, 다른 것은 다르게’ 처우하는 것이 평등이라는 학설에 대한 비판 ··················································································································· 44 4. 헌법 제11조 제1항 후문에 게기된 사유의 성격 ·········································· 45 5. 심사기준 ·································································································· 47 6. 소결론 ····································································································· 48 III. 연구의 범위 ·························································································· 49 IV. 연구의 방법 ·························································································· 49 V. 용어 ······································································································· 50 VI. 법률 차원의 평등개념과의 관계 ····························································· 54 VII. 결론 ····································································································· 56 제2장 相對的 平等說 批判 Ⅰ. 문제의 제기 ·························································································· 60 Ⅱ. 학설과 판례 ·························································································· 61 1. 도입 ········································································································· 61 2. 例外의 許否로 구분하는 입장 ···································································· 62 3. 處遇의 內容으로 구분하는 입장 ································································· 64 4. 兩者를 混用하는 입장 ··············································································· 68 Ⅲ. 각 학설의 내용 ······················································································ 72 1. 절대적 평등설 ·························································································· 72 2. 상대적 평등설 ·························································································· 75 3. 소결론 ····································································································· 77 Ⅳ. 각 학설의 심사방법 ··············································································· 79 1. 절대적 평등설 ·························································································· 79 2. 제1종 상대적 평등설 ················································································ 79 3. 제2종 상대적 평등설 ················································································ 80 4. 판례에 따른 심사방법 ·············································································· 83 5. 검토 ········································································································· 91 V. 결론 ······································································································· 93 제3장 第2種 相對的 平等說 批判 I. 들어가는 말 ····························································································· 96 II. 철학적 관점에서의 비판 ········································································· 97 1. 도입 ········································································································· 97 2. 空虛 ········································································································· 98 3. 진리? ······································································································ 101 4. 개방성·유연성 ······················································································ 103 5. 不知 ········································································································ 104 6. 矛盾 ········································································································ 106 7. 완벽? ······································································································ 108 8. 무의미 ···································································································· 109 9. 평등에서 차별로 ····················································································· 110 III. 법학적 관점에서의 비판 ······································································ 111 1. 들어가는 말 ···························································································· 111 2. 헌법 제11조 제1항 ·················································································· 113 3. 計量 ········································································································ 118 4. 인간으로서의 ‘같음’, 그리고 완벽하게 ‘다름’ ··········································· 119 5. 다르면 다르게 처우하여야 하는가? ························································· 120 IV. 실천적 난점 ? 판례 비판 ······································································ 123 1. 심사의 방법 ···························································································· 123 2. 기준의 부당성 ························································································ 124 3. 판례의 혼선 ···························································································· 126 V. 폐해 ····································································································· 130 1. 헌법을 대체? ·························································································· 130 2. 헌법 조항의 통일적 해석 ········································································ 134 VI. 결론 ···································································································· 135 제4장 審査 基準 批判 I. 문제의 제기 ··························································································· 138 II. 판례의 변화 ·························································································· 139 1. 도입 ······································································································· 139 2. 제대군인가산점 사건 이전 ······································································ 139 3. 제대군인가산점 사건 ·············································································· 141 4. 제대군인가산점 사건 이후의 결정 ··························································· 143 5. 병역법 사건과 그 이후 ············································································ 147 6. 소결론 ···································································································· 149 III. 자의성 심사의 정당성 ·········································································· 150 1. 평등조항의 성격과 현상 ········································································· 150 2. 비판 ······································································································· 154 3. 괴리의 이유 ···························································································· 156 IV. 심사척도 선택 기준의 타당성 ······························································ 159 . ‘헌법에서 특별히 평등을 요구하는 경우’ ················································· 160 2. ‘관련 기본권에 대한 중대한 제한을 가하는 경우’ ····································· 166 V. 결론 ····································································································· 172 제5장 例示的 列擧說 批判 I. 문제의 제기 ··························································································· 176 II. 학설과 판례 ·························································································· 177 1. 학설 ······································································································· 177 2. 판례 ······································································································· 178 III. 전문과 후문의 관계 ············································································· 180 1. 도입 ······································································································· 180 2. 전문의 성격 ···························································································· 180 3. 후문의 독자성 ························································································ 182 4. 입법례 ···································································································· 184 5. 소결론 ···································································································· 185 IV. 예시적 열거설의 원형과 비판 ······························································ 186 1. 예시적 열거의 원형 ················································································ 186 2. 비판 ······································································································· 189 V. 법의 일반성 ·························································································· 195 VI. 다른 개념들과의 관계 ·········································································· 199 1. 간접차별 ································································································ 199 2. 사회적 신분 ···························································································· 201 3. 입법자 구속설 ························································································ 202 VII. 결론 ··································································································· 203 제6장 間接差別 槪念 批判 Ⅰ. 문제의 제기 ························································································· 208 Ⅱ. 사건의 개요와 판단 ············································································· 209 1. 사건의 개요 ···························································································· 209 2. 판단 ······································································································· 210 Ⅲ. 헌법적 차원의 간접차별과 법률차원의 간접차별 ·································· 212 1. 헌법 차원의 간접차별 ············································································· 212 2. 법률 차원의 간접차별 ············································································· 213 Ⅳ. 간접차별 개념의 논리적 기초(예시적 열거설과 간접차별) ···················· 216 1. 들어가는 말 ···························································································· 216 2. 학설과 판례 ···························································································· 216 3. 검토 ······································································································· 218 Ⅴ. 심사기준의 문제 ·················································································· 221 Ⅵ. 차별의 개념과 간접차별 ······································································ 223 Ⅶ. 간접차별 관념의 유용성? ····································································· 227 Ⅷ. 전환의 일관성 ····················································································· 230 1. 도입 ······································································································· 230 2. 사례 ······································································································· 230 3. 소결론 ···································································································· 238 Ⅸ. 결론 ···································································································· 238 제7장 立法者 拘束說 批判 I. 문제의 제기 ··························································································· 242 II. 전제되는 논의 ······················································································ 243 1. ‘무엇이’ 입법자를 구속하는가 ································································· 243 2. 누가 ‘입법자’인가 ··················································································· 245 3. ‘법을 평등하게 집행한다’는 것의 의미와 사례 ········································· 247 III. 입법자 구속설의 논거와 비판 ······························································ 259 1. 입법자 비구속설의 논거 ········································································· 259 2. 입법자 구속설의 논거에 대한 비판 ························································· 259 3. 입법자 비구속설의 적극적 논거 ······························································ 265 IV. 다른 학설과의 관계 ············································································· 267 1. 상대적 평등설과 입법자 구속설 ······························································ 267 2. 자의성 심사와 입법자 구속설 ································································· 269 3. 입법자 구속설과 헌법 제11조 제1항 후문 사유의 해석 ····························· 271 V. 결론 ····································································································· 273 제8장 兵役義務에 관한 憲裁 決定 分析 Ⅰ. 서론 ···································································································· 276 Ⅱ. 사건의 내용 ························································································· 277 1. 사건의 개요와 검토 대상 법률조항 ························································· 277 2. 적법성 관련 판시 ···················································································· 278 3. 본안 관련 판시 ······················································································· 279 Ⅲ. 절차법적 문제 ····················································································· 281 1. 기본권 침해가능성 ················································································· 281 2. 직접성 ···································································································· 286 3. 청구기간 ································································································ 291 4. 심판청구의 이익 ····················································································· 295 5. 기타 ······································································································· 306 IV. 차별의 존부 문제 ················································································· 307 1. 도입 ······································································································· 307 2. 헌법 제11조 제1항의 평등 ······································································· 308 3. 헌재의 입장 ···························································································· 310 4. 합리적 차별을 허용하는 것이 평등이라는 견해의 문제 ···························· 312 5. 이 사건의 경우 ······················································································· 315 6. 검토 ······································································································· 316 7. 소결론 ···································································································· 319 V. 정당화 문제 ·························································································· 321 1. 심사기준 ································································································ 321 2. 후문 사유와 심사기준 ············································································· 323 3. 차별 관념과 심사기준 ············································································· 325 VI. 결론 ···································································································· 327 제9장 새로운 觀點 - 結論을 갈음하여 I. 견해 ······································································································ 332 II. 논거 ····································································································· 337 1. 기독교적 평등 ························································································ 337 2. 킹 목사의 연설 ······················································································· 340 III. 도해 ···································································································· 342 IV. 무엇이 달라지는가 ·············································································· 347 V. 결론 ····································································································· 348 부록 혼돈에 빠진 평등론 혼돈에 빠진 평등론 ··················································································· 356 찾아보기 ··································································································· 387