실질적 이유에 근거한 해석 - 대법원의 전원합의체 판결들에 대한 분석과 평가 -

Abstract

There are so many extrinsic arguments besides classical arguments of statutory interpretation based on intrinsic sources. Among them, the arguments based on substantive reasons, i.e. policy-based arguments are the most troublesome arguments of interpretation. In essence, the interpretative canons based on substantive reasons are the arguments from principles not rules. But, it constitutes of legal rules as well as legal policies. Still, the meaning, type, operating condition & effects, and justifiability of the substantive canons seems to be uncertain. It should be careful about the abuse or misuse of the substantive canons by judges. The statutory interpretation based on substantive reasons are widely used in the precedents of Korean Supreme Courts. It extents from the arguments based on legal ideal, institutional, ethical/religious reasons to the arguments based on political reasons. Unlike other substantive reasons, the policy-based interpretative canons still need justification, because it is likely to be under the control of the subjective decisions of interpreters. The substantive canons should be used in case the meaning of legal text is not certain despite the application of four classical interpretative canons.

There are so many extrinsic arguments besides classical arguments of statutory interpretation based on intrinsic sources. Among them, the arguments based on substantive reasons, i.e. policy-based arguments are the most troublesome arguments of interpretation. In essence, the interpretative canons based on substantive reasons are the arguments from principles not rules. But, it constitutes of legal rules as well as legal policies. Still, the meaning, type, operating condition & effects, and justifiability of the substantive canons seems to be uncertain. It should be careful about the abuse or misuse of the substantive canons by judges. The statutory interpretation based on substantive reasons are widely used in the precedents of Korean Supreme Courts. It extents from the arguments based on legal ideal, institutional, ethical/religious reasons to the arguments based on political reasons. Unlike other substantive reasons, the policy-based interpretative canons still need justification, because it is likely to be under the control of the subjective decisions of interpreters. The substantive canons should be used in case the meaning of legal text is not certain despite the application of four classical interpretative canons.