국민기초생활보장법상 수급권에 관한 연구

Abstract

이 논문은 「국민기초생활보장법」상 수급권을 중심 개념으로 하여, 수급권이 ‘인간다운 생활’을 위한 헌법상의 요청이며 가치라는 점을 확인한 후, 향후 기초생활수급권의 입법적 개선에 있어서 반드시 고려되어야 할 법제도적 개선점을 모색하고자 하였다. 법제도적 개선점을 모색하는 방식은 기초생활보장제도를 중심으로 한 외국의 공공부조제도와의 비교법적 검토를 통하여 시사점을 도출한 우리나라의 기초생활보장제도의 위치를 확인하고 방향을 제시함으로서 현재 제기되고 있는 「국민기초생활보장법」 및 기타 유관 법령들의 제․개정 논의들의 타당성을 분석하는 두 가지 방식을 취하도록 하였다. 법학적 관점에서 제기하고 있는 제도적 개선 방안에 관한 부분은 크게 “헌법적 원리의 반영”, “수급권의 권리성”에 중점을 두었고, 그 외의 제도적 개선 방안에 대한 부분은 실질적·절차적 타당성과 함께 현실부합성이라는 측면에서 검토하였다. 특히 기초생활보장제도에 대한 많은 제도적 개선 방안들이 제시되고 있는 현실에서, 정부의 최근 입법적 개정들의 문제점을 살펴본 후 이를 보완할 수 있는 방안을 제시하고자 하였다. 최근 정부는 기초생활보장제도에 관하여 ① 급여 방식의 분권화, ② 기초생활기준에서 상대적 빈곤 개념의 제도화(중위소득 기준 도입), ③ 자립·자활의 활성화 ④ 사회보장 전달체계의 다원화 등을 추진하고 있다. 그러나 정부의 “새로운 기초생활보장제도”는 그 권리성을 퇴색시키고 있다. 급여 방식의 분권화는 주거급여의 핵심인 지급범위와 수준의 결정권한 등에 관한 사항까지도 국토교통부장관에게 백지위임하고 있다. 한편 「국민기초생활보장법」에서 보장하는 최저생계비 수준이상의 보장이라는 기준을 삭제 하여 장기적으로는 급여의 수준이나 내용이 국회의 동의 없이 행정부의 재량으로 임의로 축소되거나 철회 될 수 있는 구조적 한계를 가지고 있다. 한편 기초생활보장수급권자가 아니지만, 기초적인 생존이 위협 받는 경우가 있을 때 이를 보완하기 위하여 「국민기초생활보장법」과 별도로 「긴급복지지원법」에서 긴급복지지원제도를 두고 있다. 긴급복지지원제도는 예외적인 상황에 있어서 일시적인 부조를 통하여 국민의 생존권을 보장하기 위한 제도이다. 비록 긴급복지지원제도는 예외적·일시적 상황으로 이루어져야 하지만 그 필요성이 기초생활보장제도보다 더 크기 때문에 그 범위를 확대하고 적극적인 대상자를 발굴하는 것이 중요하다. 한편 「국민기초생활보장법」을 비롯한 공공부조에 관한 법령들이 어떻게 개정되더라도 남는 최후의 문제점은 이러한 수급권을 어떻게 실질적으로 보호할 것인지 여부, 즉 수급권의 권리성 강화 문제이다. 권리성 여부를 평가하기 위한 가장 기본적 수단은 헌법 소송을 비롯한 기초생활보장수급권에 대한 권리구제 시스템이 마련되었는지 여부이다. 현행 기초생활보장수급권에 관한 권리구제 절차를 살펴보면, 권리구제의 측면에서 신속성과 적정성을 담보할 수 있는 법적 장치가 마련되어 있지 않다. 기초생활보장 구제의 긴급성 및 전문성 등에 비추어 보면, 일반적인 행정소송 절차와 다른 전문성을 갖춘 독립 기관을 통한 구제 절차가 필요하다. 더불어 권리의 실효성 확보를 위한 이의 제기기간 및 기산점의 조정, 심의 방식, 분쟁 처리 기간의 단축 등도 함께 수반되어야 할 것이다.|As an alternative for the [National Assistance Act 1961], [National Basic Living Security Act] which played a key role as for the national public assistance, has been enforced from October 1st, 2000. Although the number of the beneficiary of national basic livelihood guarantees has tapered off according to the report of Ministry of Health and Welfare in 2014, yet it is highly suspicious to safely conclude whether it is due to the successful application of the system. It is true that the introduction of integrated social welfare program known as ‘Hangbok’e’um’ gives birth to much more organized and systematic way of managing people under the national livlihood protection law, however, people in needs still find the social security nets unreachable and untrustworthy. The reason is obvious; people who are eligible for the system could be end up being disqualified and be ‘non take-ups’. Housing allowance system, which had been regulated under [National Basic Living Security Act], became to be regulated under the separate legislation since December 31st in 2013. Other legislation bills concerning [National Basic Living Security Act] and [Emergency Aid Act] are ahead of the enforcement as of March 31st, 2014. Regulation under the separated system or the proper coordination plan for the qualified beneficiary focusing on political standards from the administration is being promoted. Issues according to the new system, however, came to arise such as the loss of recipients’ rights, the absence of the fundamental concepts of public assistance or the remedies for the violated. Even the blind trust could be a problem. A further important consideration is that, whether we could define the expanded and detailed rights of the basic livings. It is also pointed out if we could find the way to regulate the stabile welfare finance plan effectively and provide proper public assistance at the same time. This paper will focus on verifying the benefits as constitutional requests or values and improving the institutional matters laying stress on benefits under [National Basic Living Security Act]. Examining the foreign legislations and analyzing the validity of enactments and improvements concerning [National Basic Living Security Act] as well as similar statues would also be one of the method of the study. In legal stands, applying constitutional concepts and the rights of the benefits will be emphasized. Qualitative, procedural validity as well as actualities will be examined in institutional respect. It is especially aimed to compensate the defects of recent governmental reformations of the system. The government is to 1) separate the benefit system, 2) institutionalize the concept of relative poverty (the introduction of ’median income standard’), 3) vitalize self-reliance and 4) diversify the social welfare service delivery system for its goal till October 2014. This is because the government wants to maximize the efficacy of the benefits under the system and to resolve the financial problems concerning the future public assistance by settling the system. Still, there are many problems left about the specific policies. Transferring the beneficiaries’ fundamental rights into the form of an administrative aid is one of them. Separating the benefit system might undermine the applicable provision. Giving the nation’s Transport Minister carte blanche could also be the problem. It has structural limitation of being arbitrarily reduced or withdrawn in the long run. Institutionalizing the concept of relative poverty may tarnish ‘public assistance’ in constitutional term. Further, standard for the benefits would be vulnerable to economic problems and the figures of burden are predicted to be increased constantly according to the expansion of social security system. Recently welfare policy in relation to labour is the most recommended among the various measures proposed. Germany, for example, is promoting strategies based upon modernizing social security system and simplifying the adminstration procedure including public assistance while reorganizing the benefits concentrating on progressive Labour welfare policy after Hartz (Ⅳ) reformation. In England, integrated payroll system is being enforced while unifying the systems concerning supports for unemployment with employment assistance programs under [Welfare Reform Act 2011] as well. Japan is promoting programs based on self-reliance by the local authorities and nation since 2005. Just as the Labour welfare policy is promoted in social security area, it is also promoted in the respect of an employment policy. Referring to preceded foreign policies, there are several points to be considered. Institutional measures should be prepared to prevent the violation of the former beneficiaries. Labour welfare policy should be implemented as self-reliance basis by various measures to ensure the fundamental rights. There is [Emergency Aid Act] separated from [National Basic Living Security Act] so that it can efficiently supplement the recipients under national basic livelihood guarantee system. In the institutional respect, it is only to guarantee the rights to life of the people, especially the people who are in such exceptional circumstances. But from the each beneficiary’s personal perspective, it could be more effectively managed under the separated system rather than the merged system. Accordingly, the emergency aid system which is monitored and administrated on a regular basis in a relation to National Basic Living Security system should be needed. Further more, it is needed to expand the range of the beneficiary concerning the nature of urgency itself. It is necessary to refer to a German case, achieving their political aim by giving their people the benefits on ‘support first policy’ principle or by providing the various emergency payrolls. The ways to practically protect the benefits or reinforce the degree of rights remain unsettled for the last. Ensuring the degree of rights should be one of the nation’s preferential duties and this comes out with the principle of the public responsibility. Primary regulation measures are up to whether the system for the protection of rights of the beneficiary is fully prepared including the rights to suit constitutional litigation. It is hard to protect one’s own right concerning basic livelihood security under the law since various kinds of qualifying standards for the benefits are requested and it has to be taken under complex procedures. The recipients cannot afford to concern about these kinds of structured procedures. The fact that there’s too much room for the discretionary acts by administration could also be the problem. Consequently, plans for them complementing and improving the system should be reviewed both in procedural and practical respects. Separated acts would ensure the professionality as well as objectivity for evaluating the benefits for recipients under the system. Social Welfare Administration Committee arranging the detailed proceedings should also be needed.; As an alternative for the [National Assistance Act 1961], [National Basic Living Security Act] which played a key role as for the national public assistance, has been enforced from October 1st, 2000. Although the number of the beneficiary of national basic livelihood guarantees has tapered off according to the report of Ministry of Health and Welfare in 2014, yet it is highly suspicious to safely conclude whether it is due to the successful application of the system. It is true that the introduction of integrated social welfare program known as ‘Hangbok’e’um’ gives birth to much more organized and systematic way of managing people under the national livlihood protection law, however, people in needs still find the social security nets unreachable and untrustworthy. The reason is obvious