[생생복지] 대한민국 아동방치사건

지역

[생생복지] 대한민국 아동방치사건

익명 (미확인) 님 | 월, 2018/01/01- 18:35

대한민국 아동방치사건

아동'수'로 지역아동센터를 문 닫게 하는 보건복지부

사회복지연대

지난 겨울 ‘이게 나라냐’는 분노로, 때로는 절규로 거리를 가득 채웠던 촛불은 불평등 속에서 인내해야했던 많은 시민들의 염원이었다. 그렇기에 장미대선은 희망이었고 삶이 조금은 나아질 것이라는 기대였다. 하지만 복지에는 그 희망이 여전히 옅은 것 같아 아쉽다.

이런 아쉬움에는 최근 아동수당 축소를 비롯한 많은 이유들이 있는데, 그 중에서도 국가의 미래인 ‘아동’과 관련한 복지에서 아쉬움이 남는다. 아동에게도 복지에 대한 권리, 교육받을 권리, 보호받을 권리가 있다. 하지만 여전히 남아있는 이전 정부의 흔적과 정리되지 못한 행정의 무책임함으로 인해 아동들이 방치될지도 모르는 위험에 처해져있다.

바로, 박근혜 정부 시절 만들어진 지역아동센터 통폐합에 대한 지침 때문이다.

<표 1-1>의 내용은 2017년 초 지역아동센터 운영을 위해 보건복지부에서 마련한 지침이다. 센터의 운영을 위해 여러 측면을 고려할 순 있으나 단순히 아동의 수를 기준으로 지원금을 중단하는 것은 상당히 위험한 발상이다.

지금의 우리나라는‘저출산 고령화’라는 말이 너무도 익숙하다. 고령인구는 급격하게 증가하고 있으며 아동의 수는 감소하고 있는 것이 현실이다.

<표 1-2>에서 확인 할 수 있듯이 7대 특·광역시 모두 지난 5년 동안 아동인구수가 감소했으며 이동인구 비율도 평균 2% 정도 감소했다. 이 중에서도 부산, 대구, 광주, 대전은 총 인구 감소보다 아동인구 감소가 더 많았다.

이에 인구수는 절대적인 기준이 될 수 없다는 항의성격의 문의를 보건복지부에 한 결과 “지방자치단체가 알아서 할 일”, “센터가 문을 닫으면 다른 센터로 이동하면 되는 것이 아니냐”는 답변을 받았다. 또 보건복지부는 2018년도 새로 만들어질 문재인 정부의 지침에서도 통폐합조항을 유지할 계획이라고 밝혔다.

이대로라면 내년, 부산에서만 28개의 지역아동센터가 문을 닫을 위험에 놓인다. 아동의 수가 줄어든다고 해서 돌봄을 받아야할 아동이 줄어드는 것이 아닌데 정부는 무책임하게도 다른 기관을 이용하면 된다고 답하고 있다.

문재인 정부에서도 복지가 여전히 뒷전인건 아닌지 의심스러운 모습이다. 불평등 속에서, 정부·정책의 부재 속에 살아야했던 국민들은 다양한 욕구로 지금 정부에 기대하는 것들이 있다. 그런데 복지분야에서는 이에 제대로 응답하기는커녕 적폐조차 바꾸지 못하는 것 같아 씁쓸하다.

그런데 여기엔 또 다른 큰 문제가 숨어있다. 바로 돌봄에 대한 ‘책임’ 주체이다. 지금 우리나라에는 지역아동센터 뿐만 아니라 초등돌봄교실, 청소년방과후아카데미 등 각각 성격이 다르지만 유사한 돌봄기관이 세 개나 있다.

지역아동센터는 지난 참여정부 시절 공부방을 제도화하여 만들어진 보건복지부 관할 기관이며 초등돌봄교실은 이명박 정부 만들어진 교육부 관할, 청소년방과후아카데미는 박근혜 정부 만들어진 여성가족부 관할의 기관이다. 각 기관들의 기능과 역할은 조금씩 다르지만 아동을 대상으로 서비스를 제공하는 기관임에는 차이가 없다. 하지만 담당부서는 제각각이다. 바로 여기서 책임의 부재가 발생한다.

우리나라는 UN아동권리협약에 가입한 국가로서 아동의 권리보장을 위해 노력해야할 의무가 있다. 제3조의 내용처럼 아동을 대상으로 하는 모든 활동에서 국가와 가족, 모든 책임 있는 기관들이 최상의 서비스를 보장해야함을 의무로 가지고 있다.

아동의 권리보장과 복지증진을 위해 체계를 만드는 것부터 현장에 이르기까지 전 영역에서 이러한 노력들이 필요하다. 하지만 지금처럼 관할 부처가 복지부, 교육부, 여성가족부로 나누어진 상황은 이에 적절한 모습이 아니다. 행정부처가 달라 기본적인 통계도 정확하지 않다는 아동권리위원회의 권고사항에도 이러한 모습이 여실히 드러난다.

의무도, 책임도 잊은 채 어쩌면 지금도 정책 속에서 아동을 방치하고 있는 지금 우리사회의 복지는 ‘이게 나라냐’는 부르짖음에 여전히 응답하지 못하고 있다. 여전히 불평등 속에서 살아가는 삶이 존재하며 그 삶을 바꾸기 위해 복지가 해야 할 것들이 쌓여있다.

무엇이 답인지, 무엇을 해야 하는지 고민에 빠진 요즘이지만 사회복지연대는 늘 그랬듯이 답을 찾기 위해 행동할 것이다. 부디, 대한민국 아동방치사건이 발생하지 않길 소망한다.

시민들의 의견

댓글 달기

이름

Comment

텍스트 형식 정보

텍스트 형식

Plain text

웹 페이지 주소 및 이메일 주소는 자동으로 링크로 전환됩니다.
줄과 단락은 자동으로 분리됩니다.
사용할 수 있는 HTML 태그: <a href hreflang> <cite> <blockquote cite> <code> <ul type> <ol start type> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>

CAPTCHA

스펨 사용자 차단 질문

[UN Advocacy] Allegation Letter on Xe-Pian Xe-Namnoy Hydropower Dam Collapse

<div class="xe_content"><blockquote> On 22 January 2019, The Coordinated Response Team of the Korean Civil Societies for the Xe-Pian Xe-Namnoy Dam Collapse Disaster including People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy(PSPD) submitted a letter of allegation to <a href="https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Business/Pages/WGHRandtransnationalcorp…; target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Working Group on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises</a> about Xe-Pian Xe-Namnoy Hydropower Dam in Laos. </blockquote> <h1 style="text-align:justify;">Allegation Letter on Xe-Pian Xe-Namnoy Hydropower Dam Collapse</h1> <h3>1. Summary of Xe-Pian Xe-Namnoy Hydropower Dam Collapse Case</h3> On July 23, 2018, one of the five auxiliary dams of the Xe-Pian Xe-Namnoy Hydropower Dam in Attapeu province, the southeastern state of Laos, collapsed, causing five billion cubic meters of water to inundate 6 villages that left severe flood damages as far as Cambodian villages bordering Laos. Therefore, many local residents lost their lives or went missing, and more than 6 thousand people were displaced. We believe that the related actors in the Xe-Pian Xe-Namnoy dam project, such as Lao government that failed its responsibility to maintain safety while preventing human rights infringement by the companies within its borders as well as by the inappropriate decision-making, substandard construction process and incompetent crisis handling by Korean government and Korean companies, which were involved in making investment to Xe-Pian Xe-Namnoy Hydropower Project and which handled actual construction and management of the dam, have all contributed to the serious and extensive human rights infringement of numerous local residents. As such, we urge that the appropriate steps launch a truth commission, to press governments and related companies to provide victims with adequate compensation for their loss and to prepare recurrence prevention measures to be taken as soon as possible. <h3>2. Submission of Information</h3> The Coordinated Response Team of the Korean Civil Societies for the Xe-Pian Xe-Namnoy Dam Collapse Disaster <h3>3. Victims</h3> <ul><li>Mr. Noun Moul is a 56-year-old resident of O Chay village, Siempang district, Stung Treng province, Cambodia. Mr. Noun Moul has six children. Due to the dam collapse, Mr. Noun Moul has sustained substantial losses because 3 hectares of his farmland was flooded under water, leaving him unable to grow vegetables such as cassava, corn or bean.</li> <li>Mr. Chek Vy is a 29-year-old resident of Teak Team village, Siempang district, Stung Treng province, Cambodia with one child. Mr. Chek Vy has incurred financial damage due to the dam collapse, among others loss of more than 10 livestock as well as having 1 hectare of farmland being flooded under water.</li> <li>Mr. Kong Lean is a resident of Nhang Som village, Siempang district, Stung Treng province, Cambodia. He has incurred financial damage due to the dam collapse, losing livestock such as chickens and ducks as well as having 3 hectare of farmland being flooded under water. </li> <li>All the victims above are residents of Cambodian villages located downstream of the river, where the collapsed dam was built. The three villages suffered substantial damage due to the dam collapse disaster. However, none of the above victims received any compensation for the damage or assistance.</li> <li>All the victims above expressed their consent to be named in this allegation letter.</li> </ul> <h3>4. Perpetrators & related entities</h3> There exist various related actors to recognize in Xe-Pian Xe-Namnoy dam collapse disaster: Lao government that has a duty to monitor the project developer companies’ activities within its border and to guarantee the safety of its people; PNPC that has a duty to supervise the constructor as an ordering organization; Korean government, which is a fund provider that has a duty to monitor any human rights violation by the Korean companies’ overseas activities; and SK Engineering and Construction as a constructor. We urge the related actors to take appropriate measures to address and remedy their share of liability in the disaster. 1) Lao government Principal agent in charge of the safety management within Laos border and the prevention of human rights violation by businesses and enterprises. Made a concession agreement with PNPC and received concessional EDCF loan in credit assistance from the Korean government 2) Korean government - Provided EDCF loan to Xe-Pian Xe-Namnoy Hydropower project as part of their ODA (Official Development Assistance) program 3) SK Engineering & Construction (SK E&C) - Shareholder of PNPC (holding 26% of the total share); Constructor for hydropower station 4) Korea Western Power Company (Wholly-owned subsidiary company of KEPCO (Korea Electric Power Corporation) - Shareholder of PNPC (holding 25% of the total share); Expected to operate and maintain the power plant after the completion of construction 5) Ratchaburi Electricity Generating Holding Public Company (Subsidiary company of Electric Generating Authority of Thailand (EGAT) - Shareholder of PNPC (holding 25% of the total share); in charge of construction supervision 6) Laos Holding State Enterprise, a state-owned company - Shareholder of PNPC (holding 24% of the total share) 7) Export-Import Bank of Korea - Financed 80.8 million dollars with a concessional EDCF loan in credit assistance to the Lao government 8) Krung Thai Bank, (Thai commercial bank) - Project financing 9) Bank of Ayudhaya, (Thai bank) - Project financing 10) Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group - Holding 76.8 percent share of Bank of Ayudhaya. Many in the management position are Japanese, including the current CEO of the bank 11) Export-Import Bank of Thailand - Project financing 12) Xe Pian-Xe Namnoy Power Company (PNPC) - Special-purpose entity in charge of Xe-Pian Xe-Namnoy Dam development 13) Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (EGAT) - Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) 90% 14) Electricité du Laos (EdL) - Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) 10% [Contents of Petition: Focusing on the Responsibility of the Korean Government and Companies] <div dir="ltr" style="margin-left:0pt;"> <table style="border:none;border-collapse:collapse;width:493.228346456693pt;"><colgroup><col width="*" /></colgroup><tbody><tr style="height:0pt;"><td style="border-left:solid #000000 1pt;border-right:solid #000000 1pt;border-bottom:solid #000000 1pt;border-top:solid #000000 1pt;vertical-align:top;padding:5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt;"> Contents I. Case summary II. Issues concerned 1. Corporate responsibility to respect human rights 2. State responsibility to respect human rights III. Conclusion </td> </tr></tbody></table></div> <h3> I. Case summary</h3> On July 23, 2018, one of the five auxiliary dams of the Xe Pian-Xe Namnoy Hydropower Dam in Attapeu province, the southeastern state of Laos, collapsed, causing five billion cubic meters of water to inundate 6 villages that left severe flood damages as far as Cambodian villages bordering Laos. Consequently, many local residents lost their lives or went missing, and more than 6 thousand people were displaced. The official name of the collapsed dam is ‘Saddle D.’ SK Engineering & Construction, a Korean construction company, was responsible for the construction of Xe-Pian Xe-Namnoy dam. Xe-Pian Xe-Namnoy dam project was launched in 2013 by Xe Pian-Xe Namnoy Power Company (PNPC), a special-purpose corporation established by a joint venture with SK Engineering & Construction Korea Western Power Company, Ratchaburi Electricity Generating Holding of Thailand, and Laos Holding State Enterprise, a state-owned company. The largest shareholder of PNPC is SK Engineering & Construction, which holds 26% of the whole shares. Because Korea Western Power Company holds 25% of PNPC shares, Korean companies own 51% of the total share of PNPC. The Xe-Pian Xe-Namnoy Hydropower project is a mega-project with an investment of 1 billion dollars and a construction cost of 780 billion won. In particular, the Export-Import Bank of Korea is closely linked to the project by financing 80.80 million dollars with a concessional EDCF loan in credit assistance to the Lao government. The construction of the dam was expected to produce 1,879 gigawatts of electricity annually. Ninety percent of the electricity produced was to be exported to Thailand. This project has been promoted as part of Laos’ ‘Battery of ASEAN’ policy, where Lao government seeks to export electricity to neighboring Asian region as Lao government boosts its ‘hydropower dam project.’ The Lao government has been pushing for more than a dozen dam construction projects with foreign investors such as Thai, Korean and Chinese companies and planning to export generated electricity to neighboring countries. However, the problem is that the damages caused by the Lao government’s implementation of ‘Battery of ASEAN’ policy will be suffered by local residents, while the economic gains from these projects will go mostly to outsiders. <h3>II. Issues concerned</h3> At the end of October 2018, Lao government, as it stops the search operation for the missing, made an official announcement that 43 people had been killed and 28 people had gone missing due to the Xe-Pian Xe-Namnoy dam disaster. However, many have raised questions on the credibility of the figures released by the Lao government, suspecting that the Lao government could have lowered the figures in order to continue promoting ‘Battery of ASEAN’ policy. UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations ‘ Protect, Respect, Remedy’ Framework (UN Guiding Principles) account for the state’s duty to protect individual human rights infringements from corporations within its borders, and the corporate responsibility to refrain from infringing on other people’s human rights, while respecting human rights by remedying any negative impact on human rights it may find itself accountable for. Concerning the dam collapse, it is safe to say that SK Engineering & Construction as a constructor and the government of Korea, where its headquarter is located, have failed to fulfill their responsibility or duty as explained in the UN Guiding Principles. 1. Corporate Responsibility to Respect Human Rights The companies involved have not abided by their 'responsibility to respect human rights' as per the UN Guiding Principles. (1) Inadequate response such as delayed evacuation First and foremost, Guiding Principle 13 contains that business enterprises have the responsibility to avoid causing or contributing to an adverse impact on human rights through their own activities and to address such negative impact in case they occur. If it is established that business enterprises have caused or contributed to adverse impacts, they should take the legitimate steps to provide disaster relief or to cooperate in providing relief activities. According to JRC(Joint Research Centre of European Commission) scientist’s analysis, the most severely affected areas were hit 7 hours after the collapse took place. According to the report submitted to Congress member Kyunghyup Kim by SK Engineering & Constructions at the government audit held in last October, SK Engineering & Construction had noticed 10.3cm subsidence in the dam on July 19, 2018, few days before the disaster, and had also received a report from PNPC of the cracks occurred on the upper part of Saddle D dam at 8:30pm on July 22, 2018, the day before the disaster. SK Engineering and Construction asserts that they had immediately contacted the local authorities on July 23, 2018, to evacuate villagers downstream. However, there is no sufficient information on the evacuation process implemented by SK Engineering & Construction. Further, they had not reported the damage to the provincial government until noon the next day. Moreover, Article 17 of the UN Guiding Principle states that in order to identify, prevent, mitigate and account for how they address their adverse human rights impacts, business enterprises should carry out human rights due diligence. For the process of assessing impacts, Article 18-21 of the UN Guiding Principle include that the business enterprise should take into consideration the nature and context of the operation and undertake meaningful consultation with potentially affected individuals as well as other relevant stakeholders. Yet, just the fact that there were people who had no knowledge of dam’s existence among the local residents who had suffered damage gives one reason to have strong doubt on whether there really has occurred a meaningful consultation. (2) Substandard Construction SK Engineering & Construction, as a constructor of the dam, is arguing that what has happened is ‘the overflow of the auxiliary dam due to heavy rainfall,’ while Korea Western Power Company gave an explanation that it was ‘a dam collapse due to ground subsidence.’ Meanwhile, on July 27, 2018, Khammany Inthirath, Minister of Energy and Mines, raised the possibility of substandard construction by saying in a media interview that “The auxiliary dam probably already had cracks on it, and water leaking through such cracks must have widened the cracks to eventually cause the dam to collapse.” According to the environmental social impact assessment, “the precipitation record for the affected area is often reached as much as 4,000mm per year, and the record shows that there were 1,200mm of rainfall in July 2009.” In addition, <SBS Seeking Truth 그것이 알고 싶다> pointed out that, in 2017, when it rained 800mm, the water level did not rise more than two meters. SK Engineering & Construction’s has been claiming that the cause of the dam collapse disaster must be ‘the overflow due to heavy rainfall,’ insisting that there had been record-high rainfall over the few days preceding the dam disaster, before there were over 400mm of rainfall the day before. However, such claim is lacking in persuasiveness. Two of the supporting evidence for showing a strong possibility of substandard construction are the structure of the constructed dam and reduction of the construction period. First of all, Saddle D dam’s type is an earth fill dam with a dike constructed of soil and stone. The earth fill dam is theoretically at risk of collapse when it reaches the full water level where water is filled to the full capacity. Richard Meehan, a former dam constructor and former adjunct professor at Stanford University’s School of Engineering, asserted that the dam collapse had occurred since the failure by internal erosion, which construction defects such as inappropriate foundation preparation, bad grouting, and high-risk design configurations had caused. Also, in an interview with <Seeking Truth 그것이 알고 싶다>, he pointed out that even though old rocks in the tropical zone were very fragile, the dam was built with red dirt, like bauxite, which is very brittle. In his report, it is found that naturally fragile basalt ridge line supported the collapsed dam, and rapidly increased water level had weakened the foundation of support, eventually causing the dam to collapse. Actually, Professor Kyungdu Oh mentioned in his interview with <Seeking Truth 그것이 알고 싶다> that a ‘core,’ is necessary for an earth fill dam to prevent water infiltration which may eventually cause internal erosion, but that such ‘core’ was not found in Saddle D. Korean experts have also raised the possibility of the piping phenomenon. Underground soils can often be eroded by flowing water if serious cavities, cracks in the rock, or other openings appear. This type of underground erosion creates an open path for water flow, which is called ‘piping.’ Prevention of piping phenomenon is a critical factor to be considered in designing a safe dam. Changguen Park, a civil engineering professor at Catholic Kwandong University, argued that Saddle D dam collapse showed a classic example of piping phenomenon. Also, a height of the dam should be designed with all possibilities of various disasters in mind. Jaehyun Park, a civil and urban engineering professor at Inje University, pointed out that if the dam had been properly constructed, overflow should not have occurred. In case an overflow still occurs, the probability of dam construction being a substandard construction with not enough consideration given PMP (probable maximum precipitation) becomes much higher, which in turn necessitates SK Engineering & Construction to prove that the rainfall had been severe enough to exceed PMP. (3) Suspicion on change of design and excessive shortening of the construction period by SK E&C possibly out of the pursuit of profit At the 2018 government audit by Strategy and Finance Committee, congress member Kyunghyup Kim raised a suspicion that Xe-Pian Xe-Namnoy dam collapse was caused by imprudent change of design and excessive shortening of construction period by SK Engineering & Construction’s pursuit of profit. Export-Import Bank of Korea could be seen to have essentially encouraged shortening of construction period by including a conditional provision of 4,800,000-dollar bonus for early soaking when EXIM closed a contract of 80.8 million dollars with a concessional EDCF loan in credit assistance to the Lao government. According to the office of congress member Kyunghyup Kim, even though SK Engineering & Construction began the dam construction on November 2013, after the seven-month delay from its original construction schedule, the early soaking started on time to satisfy the conditional provision for a bonus payment. Not even that, the soaking period itself was also shortened from six months to four months, which raised a suspicion that the construction period was shortened in order to secure early soaking bonus of 20 million dollars. Another suspicion raised is the change in dam design possibly to increase constructor profit. In the course of Laos dam construction, the height of auxiliary dams was decreased on average 6.5 meters when compared to the original design. In fact, the internal documents from SK Engineering & Construction show repeated mention of ‘Implementation of V/E (value engineering) for securing an additional profit of 19 million dollars.’ Such suspicion of SK Engineering & Construction incurring poor construction itself through deliberate shortening of the construction period and early soaking has been raised since right after the dam collapse. However, SK Engineering & Construction is not releasing the relevant materials that contain information on original design, actual design and construction process even to the office of congress member, insisting that those are ‘confidential documents.’ It should also be noted that some of the news reports that contained the story of SK Engineering & Construction’s efforts in ‘shortening of the construction period,’ or its success in ‘securing the early soaking bonus’ have been deleted. 2. State responsibility to respect human rights The government of the Republic of Korea, as a member of the United Nations (UN), has a duty to comply with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Moreover, Korean government, as one of the main investors for Xe-Pian Xe-Namnoy dam in Laos, is an actor directly concerned, who should carry out a thorough investigation on the Xe-Pian Xe-Namnoy dam disaster and take necessary and responsible measures. Xe-Pian Xe-Namnoy construction in Laos is an Official Development Aid(ODA) project funded by taxpayers’ money to support the end of poverty and to implement humanitarianism. Also, this project was the very first Public-Private Partnership(PPP), where Economic Development Cooperation Fund(EDCF) was committed along with Korea Western Power Company, a state-owned company, and SK Engineering & Construction, a privately-owned company. As this is an ODA project, the Korean government has a duty to carry out thorough and responsible management. However, the Korean government is displaying a very irresponsible attitude in handling the disaster. (1) Appropriateness in project selection process According to the <The Republic of Korea’s Country Partnership Strategy for the Lao People’s Democratic Republic>, regarding cooperation in the energy sector, it provided that Laos enjoyed 91.48% of electricity supply rate as of 2015-2016, reaching the national development goal of supplying electricity to 90% of Lao people. However, it also stated that some areas are still disconnected from the electricity transmission network and power generation capacity is unable to meet full national demand. Electricity is partly imported in border regions from neighboring countries such as Thailand, Vietnam and China to satisfy its need. As such, Korean government has set its strategic goal for support in the energy sector to be ‘improving quality of life and laying out foundation for higher income through increase in electricity supply rate. However, Xe-Pian Xe-Namnoy dam construction project did not suit the Korean government’s aim in formulating the strategy. Most of the electricity generated from Xe-Pian Xe-Namnoy dam was to be exported to Thailand, and the local residents were to benefit only insignificantly from the dam project. In fact, Lao government has been exporting most of the electricity generated through ‘Battery of ASEAN’ project to neighboring countries. Given such situation, it is strongly doubt whether the business feasibility analysis done by the Korean government in deciding on Xe-Pian Xe-Namnoy dam project was proper, and whether the dam project served the project goal sought through the direction of support for each focus area. This is not the only issue we are concerned about. The Korean government did not observe proper procedure when it decided to support Xe-Pian Xe-Namnoy dam project. For the international development cooperation project proceeded by Korean government, 「Framework Act on International Development Cooperation」directs that International Development Cooperation Committee under the Prime Minister’s Office reviews the project proposal. However, the Xe-Pian Xe-Namnoy Hydropower project was not included in 「2015 International Development Cooperation Comprehensive Implementation Plan」, and consequently, no budget was allocated for the project. As such, Ministry of Economic and Finance made internal decision to confirm four of credit support projects for developing countries in 2015 and went on to pay 58.1million dollars to Xe-Pian Xe-Namnoy dam project in December of the same year, which was done in a hurried manner and without taking proper steps to go through National Assembly’s deliberation on the budget. (2) Commitment to thorough investigation and appropriateness of such fact-finding mission There are further doubts on whether the rainfall data, which were included in the disaster report provided by SK Engineering & Construction after the dam collapsed, adequately reflect what had happened in addition to the issues mentioned above pointed out in this petition. In order to carry out a fair investigation, it is necessary to have an independent fact-finding organization conduct professional and transparent, excluding any actors related to the dam collapse, such as constructor. However, the accident investigation board, which the Lao government has been taking the lead, has not released any relevant information, such as the progress of the investigation or how the investigation board was made up. Also, the fact that the investigation process is under way without any proper representation of local residents or the participation of civil society. The Korean government ought to make a demand on Lao government for disclosure of information and guaranteed involvement of local residents in the investigation process. Moreover, the Korean government itself should clarify any and all suspicions surrounding the dam collapse disaster, while taking responsible measures to remedy the situation. During the 2016 UN Working Group investigation, the Korean government was urged “to raise awareness and build capacity for civil servants and lawmakers on the obligations and responsibilities of the Government and business enterprises, including State-owned enterprises, to prevent and address adverse business-related human rights impact, in line with the Guiding Principles”, “to provide guidance on the steps that leading companies should take to ensure that human rights are respected throughout their activities”, “to provide guidance concerning companies’ overseas activities and regulate such activities” and “to underline the expectations in relevant policies that business enterprises must respect human rights throughout their operations and conduct human rights due diligence in relation to their domestic and international operations.” As one can see from the suggested recommendations, corporation-related human rights abuses have consistently existed in Korea, which makes it be one of the urgent tasks for Korea as a responsible member of the international community. Prior to the 2016 recommendations, the Korean government has stated in its 2013 response to the UN inquiry on the unfair nature of the project carried out by POSCO in India that it was possible to apply domestic law to hold POSCO accountable for illegal acts committed in foreign territory. This indicates that the Korean government did not fulfill its duty to respect human rights even though it had realized its ability to penalize corporations for their inhumane actions committeed overseas. Korean government’s attitude towards the Xe-Pian Xe-Namnoy dam disaster is not in accordance with the government stance as it was portrayed in its 2013 response to the UN or 2016 Recommendations by the UN Working Group. To accomplish speedy and accountable response to the Xe-Pian Xe-Namnoy dam disaster, Korean government should explain its position on the alleged suspicions raised over the dam project and should propose its plan for fact-finding mission, inquiry into criminal and civil liability, investigation strategy to assess damage, compensation plan as well as recovery and reconstruction plan based on the international human rights standard. <h3> </h3> <h3>III. Conclusion</h3> It is predicted that the Lao government will complete its investigation by January 2019. We strongly expect that a clear and fair investigation should be conducted to address adverse human rights impacts related to the dam failure. As Report of the Working Group on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises on its visit to the Republic of Korea, business enterprises should comply with the responsibility to respect human rights by adopting a human rights policy, and carry out human rights due diligence to identify, prevent, mitigate, and account for how adverse human rights impact is addressed. Also, business enterprises should work closely with civil society to listen carefully to the issues concerned and seek to find information on the human rights risks. Furthermore, it is crucial to create an environment where victims can speak openly about the damage suffered and where they can seek and receive appropriate relief measures. If SK E&C is found to be liable for the dam collapse, the company should admit its responsibility and take steps to implement remedial actions commensurate with their share of liability. The Korean government should not only implement recovery plan but also do its best to take an active part in fair and transparent fact-finding inquiry as well as taking appropriate measures to the person in charge and preparing and implementing compensation plan for the victims from the affected area. Letter of Allegation<a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zqLlxJkmlfLoQ1MULT2ayWemGNVAhQw75G5…; target="_blank" rel="nofollow">[See/Download]</a> <a href="http://www.peoplepower21.org/index.php?mid=International&document_srl=1…; target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Korean Version>></a> </div>

권력감시

화, 2019/01/22- 10:48

[이슈리포트] 모든 소득에 공정한 세금을

<div class="xe_content"><h2>분리과세되는 주택임대소득, 금융소득에 대해 종합과세 필요해</h2> <p dir="ltr" style="list-style-type:decimal;font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;line-height:1.7999999999999998;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:10pt;">참여연대 조세재정개혁센터는 분리과세 되고 있는 2천만원 이하의 주택임대소득과 금융소득에 대한 종합과세가 필요하다는 <모든 소득에 공정한 세금을> 이슈리포트를 발표했습니다. 한국 사회의 양극화 현상이 악화되고 있는 상황에서 세금을 통해 분배상황 개선은 미미한 수준입니다. 실제 세금을 통한 지니계수 감소율에 있어 한국(8.7%)은 OECD 평균(31.3%)에 훨씬 못 미치고 있습니다. 한국 소득세의 누진도가 세계적으로 작은 것이 아님에도 이러한 현상이 발생하는 것은 비과세 감면 제도가 많은 것, 주택임대소득이 제대로 과세되고 있지 않는 것, 금융소득의 분리과세로 고소득층의 세부담이 완화된 것을 원인으로 찾을 수 있습니다. 2천만원이하의 주택임대소득과 금융소득에 대한 분리과세는 공평과세의 원칙에 부합하지 않을 뿐만 아니라 고소득ㆍ고자산가층에게 세금 특혜를 주는 것입니다. 이러한 현상을 개선하기 위해서는 분리과세되고 있는 주택임대소득과 금융소득에 대한 종합과세화가 필요합니다. <p dir="ltr" style="list-style-type:decimal;font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;line-height:1.7999999999999998;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:10pt;">주택임대소득은 지금까지 제대로 과세된 적이 없습니다. 2017년 국정감사에서 국세청이 답변한 자료에 따르면 주택임대소득을 신고한 인원은 국세청이 안내한 인원의 1/10에 불과합니다. 주택임대소득에 대한 제대로 된 과세는 2014년에야 제도로 확정되었고 그 시행은 2019년부터인 상황입니다. 그러나 2014년에 확정된 주택임대소득에 대한 과세 방안은 2천만원 이하의 소득에 대해서는 금융소득과 유사하게 간주해 분리과세하는 것이었습니다. 그러나 주택임대소득은 금융소득 대비해 혜택이 과다합니다(2천만원 기준 실효세율 비교 : 주택임대소득 3.1%, 금융소득 15.4%). 그리고 주택임대소득을 금융소득과 유사한 것으로 본다면 금융소득에는 존재하지 않는 필요경비율, 기본공제를 적용해서는 안 될 것입니다. 관련해 주택임대소득을 사업소득으로 간주하더라도 분리과세 시 적용하는 기본공제(4백만원), 필요경비율(60%)은 종합소득 과세 시 기본공제(150만원), 주택임대에 대한 필요경비율(고가주택임대 단순경비율 37.4%, 일반주택임대 단순경비율 42.6%)과 비교하면 과도한 수준입니다. <p dir="ltr" style="list-style-type:decimal;font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;line-height:1.7999999999999998;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:10pt;">금융소득은 예금이나 주식과 같은 금융자산을 가지고 있을 때 발생하는 것으로, 2천만원의 금융소득이 발생하려면 정기예금 금리와 배당 수익률 감안 시 약 10억원의 금융자산을 보유해야 합니다. 그런데 금융소득이 많은 이는 다른 소득 또한 많은 것으로 확인되고 있습니다. 특히 금융소득의 경우 상위 10%가 전체의 80% 이상을 점유하고 있으며 하위 70%는 사실상 금융소득이 없는 상황입니다. 이러한 상황에서 금융소득종합과세의 기준을 2013년 결정한 2천만원으로 유지하는 것은 공평과세라는 측면에서 바람직하지 않습니다. 현재의 종합소득세율(6.6~46.2%)을 감안하면, 종합과세되지 않는 금융소득에 대해 고소득자는 최대 30.8%p 세금 감면을 받고 있는 상황입니다. 또한 금융소득 분리과세와 함께 비교과세제도가 운영됨에 따라 금융소득만 있는 납세자의 경우 다른 소득 대비해 세부담이 높아지는 문제가 발생하고 있습니다. <p dir="ltr" style="list-style-type:decimal;font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;line-height:1.7999999999999998;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:10pt;">주택임대소득은 전면 종합과세하고 세제혜택은 줄여야 합니다. 주택임대소득은 원천징수가 불가능한 소득으로 이에 대한 분리과세는 일정 금액 이하의 소득에 대해 원천징수로 납세 의무를 종결시키는 분리과세의 일반적인 경향과도 배치되는 것입니다. 또한 다른 소득과의 형평을 위해서 기본공제와 필요경비율을 축소해야 합니다. 금융소득은 전면 종합과세 내지 종합과세 기준을 하향해야 합니다. 현재의 분리과세와 비교과세제도가 폐지될 경우 고소득자에게는 더 많은 세금을 저소득자에게는 더 적은 세금을 부과하게 됩니다. 모든 소득에 공정하게 세금이 부과되어야 조세정의가 바로 설 수 있습니다. <p dir="ltr" style="list-style-type:decimal;font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;line-height:1.7999999999999998;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:10pt;"><모든 소득에 공정한 세금을> 이슈리포트 <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WjMLR6fzC_G8A1nBrFO_haQTw8vfHmj1idp…; rel="nofollow">[원문보기/다운로드]</a> <p dir="ltr" style="list-style-type:decimal;font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;line-height:1.7999999999999998;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:10pt;">보도자료 <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wel1nkDone0NDm-XykLKm8dt7L_uNmf6Pdb…; rel="nofollow">[원문보기/다운로드]</a> <p dir="ltr" style="list-style-type:decimal;font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;line-height:1.7999999999999998;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:10pt;"> </div>

주택임대소득, 금융소득, 종합과세, 분리과세, 권력감시

수, 2019/04/17- 13:00

[통인] 자기가 누군지 알았던 판사 - 이탄희 판사

<div class="xe_content"><h1>자기가 누군지 알았던 판사</h1> <h2>이탄희 판사 </h2> <a href="https://www.flickr.com/gp/pspd1994/WEB0Ec" title="월간참여사회 2019년 3월호 (통권 263호)" rel="nofollow"><img alt="월간참여사회 2019년 3월호 (통권 263호)" height="800" src="https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7876/32284102107_b1f9b0cefa_c.jpg" width="534" /></a> 판사 이탄희가 지난 2월 25일 법원을 떠났다. 두 번째 낸 사직서가 수리됐다. 그는 지난 1월 말 법원 내부 통신망에 사직 소식을 알렸다. 법원 인트라넷을 통해 동료들에게 “우리 미래가 어둡다고 생각하지 않는다. 한번 금이 간 것은 반드시 깨어지게 되어 있다는 것, 그리고 결국 인생은 버린 사람이 항상 이긴다는 것을 저는 배웠다”고 밝혔다. 첫 사직서는 2년 전이었다. 그는 법원행정처의 부당한 지시를 거부하고 사직서를 냈다. 2017년 2월 법원행정처 심의관 발령을 받고 인사차 대법원에 들렀을 때 고위간부한테 들은 “판사들 뒷조사한 파일을 관리하게 될 텐데 놀라거나 나쁘게 생각하지 말라”는 지시가 발단이었다. 그가 속한 국제인권법연구회 활동을 부당하게 제약하라는 지시 뒤엔 양승태 전 대법원장이 있었다. ‘사법부 블랙리스트’ 존재가 수면 위로 떠 오른 건 그의 거절과 항의가 보도되면서다. 그로부터 2년, 많은 것이 바뀌었고 또 바뀌고 있다. 대법원과 청와대의 재판거래는 양승태 전 대법원장을 구속으로 집어삼켰고, 시민들은 사법농단 연루 판사들에 대한 탄핵을 요구하고 있다. 삼권분립의 한 축인 사법부에 대한 신뢰가 끝 모를 바닥으로 추락했다. 사법부 신뢰 회복을 위해선 지금보다 더 많은 것이 바뀌어야 한다. 2월 18일 서울 송파구에서 만난 이 판사는 다소 편한 모습이었다. 참여연대는 지난해 12월 이 판사에게 ‘2018 참여연대 의인상’을 시상했다. 그가 시상식에 참석한 이유는 자녀들 때문이었다. 아빠가 자리를 비우면 어디로 잡혀간 것 아닌지 걱정했을 정도였다. 법조인 부모는 사법농단 진상규명이라는 공적 책임을 온몸으로 받아냈고, 아이들은 그런 부모를 “영혼이 가출한 상태 같다”고 불안해했다. 무거운 분위기를 바꿀 겸 질문을 던졌다. “상을 받으니까 아이가 좋아하던가.” “애들은 회복이 빠르더라. 큰 효과가 있었다.”(웃음) 근황이 궁금하다. 사표는 수리됐지만 2월 25일 자 사직이라 아직 현직이다. 낮에는 현직으로 일을 한다. 밤에 주로 앞으로 어떤 삶을 살아야 할지 성찰하고 있다. 굳이 사직까지 할 필요가 있었나? 판사를 더하고 싶다는 욕심이 강했다면, 지난 2년 판사들과 함께 사법농단 진상을 밝히려 저항하는 과정에서 지금만큼 역할을 못했을 수 있다. 첫 번째 사직서를 제출했을 때와 마음가짐은 같다. 법관사회에 대한 소속감, 판사로서의 명예를 지키기 위한 마음이 크다. 또 냉정히 돌아본다. 내가 판사 일에 전력을 다하고 몰두할 수 있는 상태인가. 그럴 수 없는 상태라는 걸 나 자신이 가장 잘 알았다. 판사직을 계속 쥐고 있는 것 자체가 욕심 아닐까, 그리 생각했다. 공적 영역이 정상화되고 개혁되려면, 가장 문제의식 있고 상징적 인물이 책임 있는 자리에 앉아 제 목소리를 내는 게 낫지 않을까? 내가 처음부터 전면에 나서서 싸웠던 건 아니다. 첫 번째 사표 제출 이후 동료 선·후배 판사님들이 함께 싸움을 해주셨기 때문에 여기까지 올 수 있었다. 많은 분들이 바라는 ‘정의로운 판사’의 모습이 있을 수 있다. 법원 내부에 부당한 일이 있을 때 그걸 묵과하지 않고 온몸을 던져 싸우는 판사가 가장 바람직한 모습이기도 하지만 또 한편 판사의 본업은 재판이기에 내가 계속 공직이 있을 수 있는지는 본업을 중심으로 생각하는 것이 맞는다고 생각한다. 아쉽지만 어쩔 수 없고 여기서 연연하면 좋은 모습을 보여주기 어렵다. 왜 스스로를 ‘내부고발자’가 아닌 ‘내부거절자’라고 했나. 무엇이 다른가? 나는 다른 내부고발자분들처럼 모두가 다 알 수 있도록 폭로하거나 공개적 이의제기를 했던 건 아니다. 내부고발자라는 말은 내가 했던 행동보다 과하게 평가하는 것 같다. 내 명예와 인격을 지키기 위해 사직서를 냈고 그걸로 촉발된 일에 책임감을 느꼈다. 그 이후 동료 판사님들과 함께 저항하는 과정이 있었지만 그런 과정을 다 모아도 ‘내부고발(공익제보)’이라고 평하는 건 면구하다. 거절과 그 이후의 저항, 이 정도가 내 행동에 맞는 평가다. 양승태 전 대법원장 구속, 어떻게 바라봤나? ‘가치’와 ‘몰가치’ 대립에서 가치가 승리하는 장면이었다. 지난 2년 ‘공적 가치’와 ‘일부 법관의 이익’이 대립했다. 법 앞의 평등은 공적 가치다. 전직 판사, 고위법관이거나 전직 대법원장이라는 이유로 일반 사건과 다른 취급을 받는, 넓은 의미의 전관예우는 공적 가치가 없다. 양승태 대법원장은 검찰 소환 전 대법원을 배경 삼아 자기 지위와 권위를 부각하려 했지만 결국 법과 원칙에 따라 구속됐다. 사법부 블랙리스트 논란 이후 재판 거래 의혹까지 불거졌다. 사법부의 재판 거래는 예상했나? 재판에 직접 개입했을 거라 생각해본 적 없었다. 재판의 독립성은 우리가 지켜야 할 핵심 가치였기 때문이다. 동료 판사들도 마찬가지였다. 큰 충격을 받았다. 양승태 전 대법원장 재임 시절 대법원은 상고법원 도입을 위해 청와대와 재판 거래까지 했다. 상고법원 인사권이 대체 뭐길래 이런 일까지 저지른 건가? 한 판사가 이런 말을 했다. 양승태 대법원장은 이미 사법부라는 소왕국의 왕이었는데 사법부를 제국으로 만든 뒤 황제가 되고 싶었다고. 황제가 되는 데 필요한 마지막 퍼즐이 상고법원 인사권이라는 의미였다. 양승태 대법원장이 판사를 길들인 수단은 인사권이었다. 관행적 기준에서 대법관이 될 시기가 지난 고등부장, 법원장으로 갔다가 다시 고등법원으로 돌아온 고등부장들이 상고법원 판사가 될 기회를 가질 수 있다. 상고법원 인사권을 확대해 인사 대상을 고등부장이 아니라 지방부장까지 넓히면, 1심을 맡고 있는 판사들까지 영향을 받을 수 있다. 상고법원이 도입되고 그 인사권이 대법원장에게 주어졌다면, 대법원장의 판사 통제권은 양승태가 갖고 있던 것보다 더 컸을 것이다. 그 결과는 정말 끔찍했을 것이다. 자신의 근황과 사직 이야기에 차분하고 낮은 목소리로 말하던 이 판사도 사법 개혁 질문에는 하고픈 말이 많은 듯 목소리가 빨라졌다. 사법부가 자체 진상조사를 통해 개혁의 기회를 잡았건만 “블랙리스트 의혹은 사실무근”이라는 결과만 반복해서 내놨기 때문이다. 그러나 2월 구속기소 된 양승태 전 대법원장의 공소장에는 그가 비판적 판사들에게 불이익을 주거나 검토했다는 ‘판사 블랙리스트’ 의혹도 담겼다. 재판 거래 의혹까지 불거진 마당에 김명수 대법원장 역시 법원행정처의 조직적 범죄에 침묵으로 일관하거나 이에 가담한 판사 징계에 미온적 모습이다. 이 판사는 “검찰 개혁을 검찰에 맡기지 않듯 법원 개혁을 법원에만 맡길 수 없다”고 했다. <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/pspd1994/31316239857/in/album-72157674373…; title="20181207_참여연대 공익제보자의 밤 & 의인상 시상식" rel="nofollow"><img alt="20181207_참여연대 공익제보자의 밤 & 의인상 시상식" height="640" src="https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4845/31316239857_8c35743abd_z.jpg" width="427" /></a> 2018년 12월 7일, 이탄희 판사가 참여연대 의인상 수상 소감을 밝히고 있다 김명수 대법원장으로 교체되면 사법 개혁이 이뤄지겠지. 솔직히 말하면 그렇게 생각했다. 그러나 지금은 달라진 게 무엇인지 의문을 갖는 국민들이 많은 것 같다. 보통 개혁이 좌초될 땐 조직 내 자정 의지가 부족하거나 수장의 의지가 없는 경우인데 지난 2년은 이것만으로 설명이 안 되는 면이 있다. 진상조사 과정을 1~3차로 나눈다고 하면 1차(양승태 대법원장 시절 조사위원회)와 3차(김명수 대법원장 취임 후 구성된 특별조사단) 조사위는 좌절을 안겨주는 결과를 내놨다. 1차 조사 결과 이후 전국 대다수 판사들이 조사 결과를 받아들일 수 없다고 했고, 6개월 가깝게 전국법관대표회의가 열리며 추가 진상조사와 관계자 직무 배제를 요구했다. 3차 조사 결과 때도 이후 전국법관대표회의에서 검찰 수사가 필요하다고 뜻을 모으는 등 자정 의지가 있었다. 김 대법원장도 2~3차 조사를 명하고 검찰 수사까지 의뢰했다. 그런데도 어떻게 이렇게 해결이 더딜 수 있을까. 개인적으로도 너무 아쉽고 뼈아픈 부분이다. 판사들이 내놓은 진상조사는 기대에 미치지 못했는데? 진상조사라는 중책을 맡은 판사들은 결국 자기가 누군지 망각했다. 1, 3차 조사위에 참여했던 판사들은 분명 자신들의 이름을 걸고 진상을 밝히겠다고 했다. 조사 대상 판사들의 거부와 비협조로 벽에 부딪혔다. 그렇다면, 끝까지 진상조사를 요구하거나 더 나아갈 수 없다면 조사를 중단한 뒤 밝히지 못한 부분에 대책을 내놨어야 했다. 자신들도 사법부 조직 일원이라는 생각에 조사 대상자들과의 관계 등에 휘둘린 셈이다. 이후 대응을 보더라도 적극적으로 자신들이 내놓은 조사 결과가 맞는다고 주장하지도 않았다. 이를 테면 양 대법원장을 왜 끝까지 부르지 않았느냐고 하면 ‘우리도 판사인데 고위법관을 그렇게까지 할 수 있겠느냐’는 식이다. 중요한 직책을 맡고도 자기 직분을 다하지 못한 이들이 큰 혼란을 불러왔다. 자정 의지를 가진 수많은 판사들이 뒷받침했는데 말이다. 대법원은 사법농단 연루 판사들 징계를 방관하고 있다. 사법농단에 부당하게 관여한 법관 83명 가운데 65명이 현역인데 이 가운데 절반의 징계시효가 지났다는 보도(<경향신문> 2019년 2월 18일 자)도 나왔는데? 검찰 수사 과정에서 비위 사실이 드러난 분들에 대한 징계 문제다. 3차 진상조사 때 행정처 윤리감사관실이 많이 참여했다. 추가 징계 담당 부처도 윤리감사관실이다. 이분들이 똑같은 실수를 하는 일은 없어야 한다. 직무에 충실한 윤리감사관실이라면 징계 조사를 빨리 시작해야 한다. 징계 조사 개시에는 어떤 제약도 없다. 그동안 판사가 고위법관을 끝까지 조사할 수 없는 조직 문화적 한계가 노출됐다. 이 부분 해결책을 이제는 법원이 제시해야 한다. 사법농단 사태에 국민들은 판사 탄핵을 요구하고 있다. 여당도 판사 탄핵을 추진하고 있는데, 이에 대한 생각은 어떤가? 우리 사회에 ‘탄핵 공포증’이 있는 것 같기도 하다. 과도하게 정치 이슈로 받아들인다. 넓은 의미에서 보면 탄핵은 판사 징계의 일환이다. 법원 내에서 자체적으로 할 수 있는 징계는 정직 1년까지다. 징계 시효도 3년이다. 헌법이 정해놓길 정직보다 큰 징계를 하려면 국회에서 논의를 시작하고, 헌법재판소에서 최종 결정을 해야 한다. 징계 절차 일환으로, 국회가 국회로서 기관 의무를 다하는 것이라고 봐주셨으면 한다. 국회의 탄핵소추 근거가 부족하다면 헌법재판소에서 탄핵을 기각해 판사가 구제될 수 있다. 미국의 경우 내부 윤리위원회에서 조사한 결과만 갖고도 미국 대법원이 의회에 탄핵소추를 검토해달라고 의뢰한다. 그것에 따라 실제 탄핵소추된 경우도 있다. 일각에선 입법부의 ‘사법부 흔들기’라는 주장도 하는데? 삼권 분립은 입법부, 사법부, 행정부가 똑바로 서서 자기 헌법적 기능을 다 해야 한다는 걸 뜻한다. 한 기관이 누워있어도 아무 말도 하지 않는 게 삼권 분립이라고 오해하면 안 된다. ‘사법부 독립’과 ‘사법부 이익’이 다르듯, ‘법치주의’와 ‘법관의 이익’이 다르듯, ‘삼권 분립’과 ‘삼권 분리’를 혼동해서는 안 된다. 탄핵 절차는 삼권 분립을 위반하는 게 아니라 삼권 분립을 위한 것이다. 헌법이 규정하는 국가기관의 의무다. 사법농단 이후 주요 판결에서 재판부를 불신하는 목소리가 커지고 있다. 최근 한 판결 결과에 재판장의 대법원장 비서실장 경력을 문제 삼는 분들이 적지 않았다. 이 사건에서 국민들이 재판 결과를 불신하게 된 까닭에는 ‘판사의 비서 경력’이 있다. 판사가 법복을 입고 누군가의 비서 역할을 했다는 것 자체가 불신 요소가 된 것이다. 현 대법원장 밑에서 비서 역할을 하고 있는 판사가 있다면 해당 판사는 훗날 중차대한 사건을 맡게 됐을 때 지금과 같이 불신 받을 수 있다. 그렇다면 개혁 방향은 판사가 다른 곳에 가서 비서 역할을 하지 않게 만드는 거다. 언론 인터뷰에서 사법 신뢰 회복 일환으로 재판의 투명성도 강조했다. 재판 투명성이 강조되면 독립성을 침해할 수 있다는 주장도 있는데? ‘사법 행정’과 ‘재판’ 두 가지 영역으로 나눠볼 수 있다. 사법 행정의 투명성은 아무리 강조해도 지나치지 않는다. 이번 사법농단 관련해서 법원행정처장이 ‘스폰서 판사’ 사건 재판에 영향을 줄 의도로 고등법원장에게 전화한 행동은 사법 행정 영역이다. 사법 행정의 기록을 만들고 그걸 투명하게 공개하는 시스템이 있다면 그런 행동을 할 수 없었을 거다. 법원장회의 속기록은 있지만 그 수준이 어느 정도인지 알려진 적 없다. 법원행정처장이 주재하는 회의 관련 속기록은 없는 걸로 알고 있다. 반면 전국법관대표회의는 자문기구에 불과하지만, 평판사들의 발언 내용을 실명으로 기록하고 판사들에게 공개한다. 재판 영역에서의 투명성은 어떤 의민가? 실제 재판에서 개인 정보 등 민감한 부분이 있을 수 있다. 그러나 확정된 사건에서 민감한 정보에 대한 조치가 가능하다면 투명하게 공개할 필요가 있다. 미국에선 재판 영상을 보존했다가 나중에 공개하는 주도 꽤 많다. 영상 대신 속기록을 만들어 재판이 끝나면 공개하는 주도 많다. 재판 독립에 저촉되지 않는 선에서 충분히 투명성을 보장하는 게 재판 신뢰도에 도움이 될 수 있다. 사법 개혁에서 시민들의 역할이 있다면? 먼저 사법권 독립이라는 말이 마치 사법 개혁 주체가 오로지 법원이어야 한다는 말로 오해를 사는 면이 있다. 사법 제도 설계 권한은 국회에 있다. 사법 제도 설계는 다른 제도와 마찬가지로 법률로써 한다. 제도 운용을 법원이 할 뿐이다. 그런 의미에서 사법 제도 개혁 주체는 어디까지나 국회다. 국민들은 국회의원을 선출하고 국회의원은 국민 여론에 귀를 기울인다. 시민 참여는 결국 국회를 통해 이뤄져야 한다. 국회의 사법 개혁 추진이 삼권 독립 침해인 것처럼 주장해선 안 된다. 향후 계획도 알려 달라. 계속 일하느라 못 세웠다. 염두에 두고 있는 건 없다. 가치 있는 일이라면 하고 싶다. 내가 잘할 수 있는 일을 찾아야겠지. 지금까지는 판사만 생각해 왔는데, 정말 새 직업을 찾아야 할 상황이다. 처음 사회에 진출할 때 느낌이다. <hr />글. 김도연 참여사회 편집위원, <미디어오늘> 기자 사진. 박영록 자원활동가 <div> </div></div>

권력감시

수, 2019/02/27- 20:24

[기자회견] 3/20 등록금 인하와 교육 공공성 강화 요구

<div class="xe_content"><h1>“우리에게 필요한 것은 ‘빚’이 아닌 ‘빛’입니다!”</h1> <h2>등록금 인하와 교육 공공성 강화를 요구하는 대학(원)생·학부모·시민단체 공동기자회견 개최 국가장학금, 학자금대출, 강사법 개선 등 9대 요구안 국회에 전달</h2> <h2>일시장소 : 2019년 3월 20일(수) 13:30분 국회 앞 </h2> 1. 취지와 목적 2019년 3월, 개강을 즈음하여 대학원생, 학부모, 시민단체 등은 대학(원)생들의 등록금 부담을 완화하고 교육의 공공성 강화를 높이기 위해 △국가장학금 기준 제한 개선 △국가장학금 예산 확대, △대학생, 대학원생 학자금 대출 무이자 도입, △공공기숙사 확충, △등록금 심의위원회 구성과 운영방안 개선, △사립대학 관리 감독 강화, △ 강사법 시행에 따른 문제점 개선, △ 계열별 차등등록금 제도 개선 등을 요구하는 기자회견을 개최하고, 국회 교육위원회 소속 의원들에게 의견서를 전달할 예정입니다. 2. 기자회견 개요 <ul><li>제목 : “우리에게 필요한 것은 ‘빚’이 아닌 ‘빛’입니다!” 등록금 부담 완화와 교육 공공성 강화를 요구하는 대학(원)생·학부모·시민단체 공동기자회견</li> <li>일시장소 : 2019. 3. 20(수) 오후 1시 30분, 국회 정문 앞</li> <li>주최 : 반값등록금국민운동본부, 참여연대 민생희망본부, 청년참여연대, 전국대학생네트워크, 예술대학생네트워크, 민변 교육위원회, 전국대학원생노동조합, 참교육학부모회, 사립학교개혁을위한국민운동본부, 대학공공성강화를위한공동대책위원회 등</li> <li>진행안</li> </ul>사회 : 김주호 참여연대 민생희망본부 팀장 발언1 : 민생경제연구소 안진걸 소장 발언2 : 청년참여연대 장소화 간사 발언3 : 전국대학학생회네트워크 이민하 공동의장 발언4 : 예술대학생 네트워크 안재영 공동의장 발언5 : 전국대학원생노동조합 강태경 수석지부장 보도협조요청서 [<a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N8xcNRSxG-caWHsqfR0I4fja_AF7Yhp50pR…; rel="nofollow">원문보기/다운로드</a>] </div>

권력감시

화, 2019/03/19- 11:47

[Watch Report] US Policy is Shifting toward Phased, Simultaneous and Parallel Denuclearization Measures

<div class="xe_content"><h2>Watch Report No.5 </h2> <h1>Kim Jong-Un’s “New Year Address” Set the Tone for Negotiations and US Policy is Shifting toward Phased, Simultaneous and Parallel Denuclearization Measures</h1> Feb. 12, 2019 Stagnant water has started running. We conclude that this change can be largely attributed to the impact of Kim Jong-Un’s 2019 “New Year Address.” On February 5, during his State of the Union address, US President Trump announced that Chairman Kim and he would meet again on February 27 and 28 in Vietnam for their second summit. And on February 8, three days after the address, President Trump announced in a tweet would take place in Hanoi, Vietnam. Since the agreement made at the first summit in Singapore last June, negotiations between the US and the DPRK on the implementation of the agreement have remained deadlocked. It was widely agreed that unless there was a concrete commitment to break the deadlock and advance implementation of the initial agreement, holding a second summit would be useless. Therefore, the decision to hold a second summit means that the DPRK, and especially the US, currently consider that a second summit could possibly produce a significant agreement between the parties. To understand the process that led to this decision, it is important to carefully read two speeches. One is a “New Year Address” by Chairman of the Workers’ Party of Korea, Kim Jong-Un [1], and the other consists of remarks on the DPRK at Stanford University by Stephen Biegun, US State Department Special Representative for North Korea Policy [2], delivered on January 31, 2019. On January 1, 2019, Chairman of the Workers’ Party of Korea, Kim Jong-Un, delivered the annual “New Year Address.” Many observers paid attention as to how the address would evaluate last year’s rapid developments toward the easing of tensions on the Korean Peninsula and discussions toward denuclearization, and what this year’s policy would be. The reason for the close attention to Kim’s address was that those who hoped for improvement in the current situation were concerned that there might be a change in the DPRK’s policy. And, those who were skeptical about any improvement in the situation under the current conditions were expecting signs of aggravation with the deadlock. They considered that this might be a possibility because since last April, while inter-Korean relations had been steadily improving, discussions between the US and the DPRK had remained deadlocked and the DPRK had been becoming increasingly dissatisfied as it saw the deadlock had been caused by US unilateral foreign policy. At the end of last year, refraining from directly criticizing US President Trump, the DPRK had escalated criticism to the point that the DPRK state-run media criticized US Secretary of State Pompeo by name. [3] Accordingly, given these circumstances, no one could deny the possibility that Chairman Kim Jong-Un’s “New Year Address” would include a hard line stance against the US or make difficult demands on South Korea. Under these circumstances, in his “New Year Address,” Chairman Kim Jong-Un praised the changes in 2018 and communicated to the DPRK people his will to prioritize economic development and a clear policy to improve US and DPRK relations, making advances toward denuclearization. Considering that the “New Year Address” is basically a message directed to the DPRK people, the significance of the fact that Kim Jong-Un mentions the joint statement at the Singapore summit between the US and the DPRK is vitally important. He stated, “It is the invariable stand of our Party and the government of our Republic and my firm will to … build a lasting and durable peace regime and advance towards complete denuclearization. Accordingly, we declared at home and abroad that we would neither make and test nuclear weapons any longer nor use and proliferate them, and we have taken various practical measures… We have no intention to be obsessed with and keep up the unsavoury past relationship between the two countries, but are ready to fix it as early as possible and work to forge a new relationship in line with the aspirations of the two peoples and the requirements of the developing times.” Kim Jong-Un even declared to the DPRK people in his policy that “we would not make nuclear weapons any longer,” which had never been expressed openly before. Recalling that last year’s “New Year Address” directed “to mass-produce nuclear warheads and ballistic missiles and deploy them for action,” this year’s “New Year Address” can be considered to have announced a dramatic policy change to the DPRK people. On the other hand, a large number of media focused on the following sentence in the “New Year Address,” a DPRK’s warning message to the US. “But if the United States does not keep the promise … and out of miscalculation of our people's patience, it attempts to unilaterally enforce something upon us and persists in imposing sanctions and pressure against our Republic, we may be compelled to find a new way for defending the sovereignty of the country and the supreme interests of the state and for achieving peace and stability of the Korean peninsula.” It is understandable why the overseas media showed interest in this sentence. However, the most important message which should be read in the “New Year Address” is not this one. The critical message is that the DPRK positively evaluated the consequences of changes during the past year as an achievement and announced its invariable stand that, based on that achievement, the DPRK would advance toward improvement in US and DPRK relations and denuclearization this year. That message must have provided a significant basis for the US government to advance US-DPRK relations. On January 18, 2019, Kim Yong-Chol, vice chairman of the Workers’ Party of Korea, carrying a letter from Kim Jong-Un to US President Trump, visited Washington, DC and met with President Trump. At this time, Kim Yong-Chol was accompanied by North Korea’s former ambassador to Spain, Kim Hyok Chol, who would lead working-level talks. Being the DPRK’s number two figure, Kim Yong-Chol’s visit to Washington, DC reminds us of the vice chairman of the National Defense Commission Jo Myong-Rok’s historic visit to the US on behalf of Kim Jong-Il in October 2000 to meet with US President Clinton. At that time, following Jo’s visit, US Secretary of State Albright’s historic visit to Pyongyang and meeting with Chairman Kim Jong-Il took place. Following the talks between President Trump and Kim Yong-Chol, US-DPRK relations progressed quickly. Although US Secretary of State Pompeo appointed Stephan Biegun as US State Department Special Representative for North Korea Policy on August 2018, no working-level talks with DPRK counterparts had taken place. However, the next day following talks between Kim Yong-Choi and President Trump, three days of working-level talks took place in Stockholm, with the attendees remaining on the premises of their hotel and an international conference venue for the duration. Then, the second summit’s schedule was announced, as described at the beginning of this report. To understand the changes since January 18, Biegun’s remarks about the DPRK at Stanford University are vitally important. After the remarks, a question-and-answer session with Robert Carlin, a veteran expert on North Korea and former Chief of the Northeast Asia Division in the Bureau of Intelligence and Research at the State Department under the Clinton administration, was held. Carlin’s pointed questions covered many valuable topics. The vitally important point clearly expressed in Biegun’s remarks is that the US is prepared to pursue simultaneous, parallel and phased measures that the DPRK had been calling for. Biegun stated as follows: “For our part, we have communicated to our North Korean counterparts that we are prepared to pursue – simultaneously and in parallel – all of the commitments our two leaders made in their joint statement at Singapore last summer.” “Chairman Kim qualified next steps on North Korea’s plutonium and uranium enrichment facilities upon the United States taking corresponding measures. Exactly what these measures are is a matter I plan to discuss with my North Korean counterpart during our next set of meetings. From our side, we are prepared to discuss many actions that could help build trust between our two countries and advance further progress in parallel on the Singapore summit objectives of transforming relations, establishing a permanent peace regime on the peninsula, and complete denuclearization.” [2] This represents a substantial change and indicates progress in US foreign policy. The US demand on the DPRK to submit a complete list of its nuclear program, which attracted a lot of attention from the media at first, has now been postponed to become an issue to be addressed at later stages of negotiations. “Before the process of denuclearization can be final, we must also have a complete understanding of the full extent of the North Korean weapons of mass destruction missile programs. We will get that at some point through a comprehensive declaration.” [2] Additionally, Biegun strongly implied that intermediate measures would include issues related to putting an end to the Korean War. “President Trump is ready to end this war. … We are not seeking to topple the North Korean regime. We need to advance our diplomacy alongside our plans for denuclearization in a manner that sends that message clearly to North Korea as well. We are ready for a different future. It’s bigger than denuclearization, while it stands on the foundation of denuclearization, but that’s the opportunity we have and those are the discussions we will be having with the North Koreans.” [2] Another our point of interest is the relation between this new policy and the US approach of putting pressure through sanctions, which the US has stressed to date. In this regard, Biegun implied changes but didn’t convey clear message. “We will sustain the pressure campaign, at the same time, we are trying to advance the diplomatic campaign, and we have to find the right balance between those two. Areas like cultural exchanges or people-to-people initiatives that you (Carlin) described seem to me a very obvious place where we could begin to make progress in that environment.” [2] In connection with that, we would like to take note of the fact as well that during rapid changes after the talks between President Trump and Kim Yong-Chol, remarks by John Bolton, a super-hawk national security advisor to the US President, have indicated a change. On January 25, during a private interview with the “Washington Times,” Bolton stated as follows regarding the sanctions: “What we need from North Korea is a significant sign of a strategic decision to give up nuclear weapons and it is when we get that denuclearization that the President can begin to take the sanctions off.” [4] It might be possible to interpret that the DPRK has already made a strategic decision to “give up nuclear weapons” and engaged in negotiations with the US at this time, and such an interpretation is left to the subjective judgment by the Trump administration. The phrase “begin to take the sanctions off” is considered to imply taking the sanctions off in a phased manner. (Hiromichi UMEBAYASHI and Kana HIRAI) ------------------------------------------ [1] English full text is available in the following link. <a href="http://www.kcna.kp/kcna.user.home.retrieveHomeInfoList.kcmsf" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.kcna.kp/kcna.user.home.retrieveHomeInfoList.kcmsf</a>…; [2] U.S. Department of State, "Remarks on DPRK at Stanford University," January 31, 2019 <a href="https://www.state.gov/p/eap/rls/rm/2019/01/288702.htm" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">https://www.state.gov/p/eap/rls/rm/2019/01/288702.htm</a> (Robert Carlin’s questions and Stephen Biegun’s answers are included as well as Biegun’s remarks) [3] For instance, an article from KCNA ”Press Statement of Policy Research Director of Institute for American Studies, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the DPRK,” December 16, 2018 　<a href="http://www.kcna.co.jp/index-e.htm%E3%80%80" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.kcna.co.jp/index-e.htm　</a> Search for the article from date. [4] Tim Constantine, “John Bolton explains Trump's strategy on North Korea, China trade,” The Washington Times, January 25, 2019 <a href="https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jan/25/john-bolton-explains-t…; target="_blank" rel="nofollow">https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jan/25/john-bolton-explains-t…; <a href="http://www.peoplepower21.org/index.php?mid=Peace&listStyle=list&page=2&…; target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Korean Version>></a> <hr /> <blockquote> <h2>Citizens’ Watch on the Implementation of Korean Denuclearization Agreements</h2> Outline In the Panmunjom Declaration at the 2018 April 27 Inter-Korean summit, the Republic of Korea (ROK, South Korea) and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK, North Korea) agreed to cooperate to alleviate military tension, eliminate the danger of war and establish a permanent peace regime including a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula. In the joint statement at the 2018 June 12 Singapore Summit between the United States and the DPRK, the two states set forth their common goal to establish new US-DPRK relationship for peace and prosperity and to build a lasting and stable peace regime on the Korean Peninsula. In this regard, the US has committed to providing security guarantees to the DPRK, and the DPRK has committed to the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. These two summit agreements have dramatically changed the international landscape of Northeast Asia, which was on the brink of a possible nuclear war in 2017. Now we witness ongoing dialogue between North and South Korea and between the US and the DPRK. This is a historic change. Even after two significant turning points in modern history - the end of World War II and the end of the Cold War - challenging relationships among regional states persist to this day in Northeast Asia. Disputes over damages in the DPRK caused by Japanese colonization have remained officially unsettled for more than 70 years. The Korean War has not officially ended more than 65 years after the 1953 ceasefire agreement. Now is a golden opportunity to overcome these historical legacies and we want to make the best use of this favorable moment. To that end, we believe patient diplomatic efforts by concerned states to faithfully implement the two summit agreements are vitally important to reverse the long-standing mutual distrust among states. In this process of diplomatic efforts, we believe the roles of civil society, especially in Japan, South Korea, and the US, are vitally important. They need to appeal to their democratically elected governments about the importance of this opportunity and the necessity to gain an accurate understanding of previous negotiations concerning the Korean Peninsula denuclearization and to draw lessons from them. Also, all civil society constituents, including legislators, municipal leaders, and journalists, have to work diligently to eradicate distrust and biases deeply rooted in civil society. Based upon such considerations, the Peace Depot Inc. has launched this project to keep close watch on the diplomatic process to realize the implementation of the summit agreements. While it seems possible to organize a joint project among NGOs in Japan, South Korea, and the US, we have decided to adopt a project plan in which citizens in each country appeal to their own governments and civil society and closely communicate with each other. This approach would be more focused and effective in consideration of the differences in the political and historical backgrounds of each civil society. Most especially, in Japan as an atomic-bombed state, the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula is closely linked to Japan’s inherited mission to make Japan genuinely nuclear weapon-free and to establish a Northeast Asia Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone. We will closely cooperate with NGO colleagues working for the same cause in South Korea and the US. Activities 1. Publication of “Watch Report” - first in Japanese, then shortly after, in Korean and English - irregular publication, roughly once every three weeks with several pages on A4 size paper - published in a free-access blog website, as well as through a mail-magazine sent to subscribed names 2. Visits and Representations to related Governmental Offices, including the Foreign Ministry of Japan 3. Organizing occasional public seminars 4. Organizing international workshops and symposiums in cooperation with US and ROK NGOs Team and Staffing 1. Project Team: Takuya MORIYAMA, Kana HIRAI, Hiromichi UMEBAYASHI*, Ichiro YUASA, Hajime MAEKAWA, Miho ASANO, Maria KIM (ROK), Patti WILLIS (Canada) *inaugural team leader 2. In Cooperation With: Korea: People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy (PSPD), Peace Network USA: Peace Action Western States Legal Foundation Advisor: Panel on Peace and Security of Northeast Asia (PSNA) (Co-Chairs: Michael HAMMEL-GREEN (Australia), Peter HAYES (USA), MOON Jong-In (ROK) and TOMONAGA Masao (Japan) </blockquote></div>

권력감시

화, 2019/02/12- 10:01