Constitutional Law and Administrative Law
What this domain tests
This domain tests constitutional principles and administrative-law doctrine. Questions ask whether state action violates basic rights or administrative-law limits.
Core rules
- 헌법 establishes popular sovereignty, separation of powers, and constitutional review. Basic rights may be limited by law, for a legitimate purpose, and proportionally, without destroying essential content.
- 행정법 distinguishes statutes and regulations from administrative rules. Administrative acts must be lawful and, where discretion exists, must respect proportionality, equality, good faith, and the prohibition of improper linkage.
- 행정절차법 requires notice and an opportunity to be heard before adverse dispositions.
- Remedies include administrative appeal and administrative litigation.
Worked example
An agency revokes a business license without prior notice or hearing. The disposition is procedurally defective because an adverse disposition requires notice and an opportunity to state opinions. Reasoning: substantive grounds may exist, but procedure is independently required; the defect can affect the disposition’s validity.
Traps
Do not treat administrative rules as binding statutes. Do not assume discretion is unlimited. Do not confuse standing or defendant rules in administrative litigation. Do not ignore the essential-content limit on rights.
Key points
- Rights limits need law, purpose, and proportionality.
- Discretion is bounded by general principles.
- Adverse dispositions require notice and hearing.
- Administrative rules differ from statutes.
- Procedure can invalidate an otherwise supportable decision.