조례폐지 주민청구에 대한 부작위 위법확인
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning for this part of the basic facts is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part of the basic facts is cited by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The entry in the relevant legislation (attached Form 2) is as follows.
3. The reasoning for this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part of the judgment is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
4. Judgment on the defendant's main defense of safety
A. The gist of the defendant's assertion is that the defendant's resolution on the draft of the municipal ordinance requested by the residents of this case constitutes an administrative agency's disposition, but the defendant's resolution on the municipal ordinance of the local council is merely an act of legislation of the municipal ordinances and rules, and does not constitute an administrative agency's disposition.
Therefore, the defendant's failure to decide on the draft of the municipal ordinance requested by the residents of this case does not constitute an action for confirmation of illegality of omission as provided by the Administrative Litigation Act.
In addition, the Ordinance on the Residents' Request of this case was abolished on June 30, 2018 after the completion of the session of the 7th session of the 7th session of the Seoul Military Council, and no longer the defendant is able to deliberate and resolve on it, so there is no benefit of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit seeking confirmation of illegality
B. A lawsuit seeking confirmation of illegality of an omission, which is one of the appeals litigations prescribed in Article 2(1)2, Article 3 subparag. 1, and Article 4 subparag. 3 of the Administrative Litigation Act, is a lawsuit seeking confirmation of illegality of an omission by an administrative agency, namely, a lawsuit seeking confirmation of illegality of an omission, as to an administrative agency’s failure to take a certain disposition within a reasonable period despite the legal obligation of an administrative agency to take a certain disposition against a party’s
Therefore, a person who filed an application for a disposition may have a legal interest in seeking confirmation of illegality of omission, and the object of confirmation of illegality should be related to omission.