일본의 행정계획법제

Abstract

In broad terms, the issues and concerns surrounding administrative planning align between the Japanese and Korean administrative law systems. However, relevant discussions have diverged following the Japanese revision of the Administrative Case Litigation Act in 2004. A distinct feature of the legal discourse in Japan's administrative planning system is its focus on understanding administrative planning within the flow of various administrative activities or the administrative process itself. The Japanese discussions on controlling the widely acknowledged planning discretion, substantive or procedural, follow a pattern similar to those in Korea. However, they diverge slightly in the discussion about ‘judgment process review,’ which begins with confirming the stage at which discretion is exercised in the administrative planning process, and in the converged opinion on using ‘litigation to confirm illegality’ for party litigation. Although specific discussions took place on administrative planning proposed during the revision of the Administrative Case Litigation Act in 2004, it is unfortunate that such discussions have not been applied actively over the past 20 years. However, proposals have since been made for administrative hearings or new types of litigation formats suitable for disputes related to administrative planning, which offer significant insights for Korea.
 On the other hand, the ‘basic policy’ implemented under the name of ‘planning’ in administrative practice has drawn less attention because it is related to setting the definition and scope of administrative planning and does not directly impact citizens' rights and interests. In Japan, however, so-called induction-type and guideline-type plans are used in various administrative affairs and serve as a means for state control over local governments. This study aims to draw implications for the Korean legal system by examining recent challenges in Japan’s administrative planning and discussions aimed at solving them.