2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

In full view of the whole purport of the pleadings, the following facts may be acknowledged in the evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (Additional No. 5).

A. On December 19, 2003, the Defendant passed a resolution on the amendment of the Municipal Ordinance (hereinafter referred to as the "Revision Ordinance") as stated in the order and transferred it to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff demanded reconsideration from the Defendant on January 10, 2004 on the ground that Article 48 of the Amendment Ordinance was in violation of Article 15 of the Local Autonomy Act and Article 4 of the Framework Act on Administrative Regulation, but the Defendant, on February 16 of the same year, re-resolutioned the amendment Ordinance as the original Municipal Ordinance at the third plenary session of the 146th extraordinary session of the same year, and was promulgated on February 27 of the same year.

(b) Article 48 of the amended Ordinance shall move to Article 48 of the previous Seoul Special Metropolitan City Building Ordinance, and newly established Article 49 of the same Ordinance, and paragraph (1) of the same Article shall be referred to as "a person who installs and constructs a boiler in a building in order to prevent accidents of boiler and to promote the efficient use of energy under Article 76 of the Act shall deliver to the owner of the building and the project supervisor a written confirmation of installation and construction of a boiler, stating the trade name, name, contact details, and construction details of the boiler: Provided, That those falling under any of the following subparagraphs shall be excluded:

2. Whether the draft amended Municipal Ordinance violates any statute;

A. Article 48 of the amended Ordinance imposes a duty to issue a certificate of installation and construction of boiler to a contractor and a construction supervisor when installing and constructing a boiler in a building. On the other hand, when applying for approval of the use of a building, the said certificate shall be attached to the owner of the building. In the end, by prescribing the grounds for refusal of approval of the use of the boiler, so that the owner of the building who intends to install the boiler may not obtain approval of the use of the building unless he/she submits a certificate of installation and construction of the boiler. Thus, it is clear that restricting the rights of residents and imposing a duty on residents pursuant to the proviso to Article 15 of the Local Autonomy Act and Article 4 of the Administrative Regulation Act is lawful.

B. Each provision of Article 14(1) and (2) of the Urban Gas Business Act, Article 20 and Article 20-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act shall be prepared and kept when a person who registered a gas facility construction business completed installation or alteration work for gas supply facilities or gas-using facilities, and a copy thereof shall be delivered to an urban gas business operator and a person who registered a gas facility construction business to submit a certificate of installation and construction of a gas boiler to an urban gas business operator and a person who uses gas at a specific gas-using facilities. As such, the said person is merely obligated to submit a certificate of installation and construction of a boiler to the owner of a boiler installed and constructed boiler, such as gas, oil, electricity, and smoke boiler, and the owner of a building shall submit a certificate of installation and construction of a boiler to the owner of the building at the time of application for approval for use of the building. Thus, it cannot be the ground for delegation of Article 48 of the Ordinance of this case.

C. According to Article 21(5) of the Building Act and Article 19(3) of the Enforcement Rule of the Building Act, a construction supervisor shall prepare an interim report and a report on completion of supervision to confirm whether heating facilities are constructed in accordance with the design documents and submit them to the building owner, and the building owner shall submit them along with an interim supervision report and a report on completion of supervision when applying for approval of use of the building. Each of the above provisions is intended to prevent defective construction of heating facilities and to prevent accidents and promote efficient use of energy. Accordingly, Article 48 of the amended Ordinance is to regulate the same for the same purpose as the above provisions of the above Building Act and to regulate new or strong forms of regulations different from those of the above Building Act and subordinate statutes, so Article 48 of the amended Ordinance violates the above Building Act and subordinate statutes.

D. Therefore, in some cases, the proposed amendment ordinances are illegal and in such a case, the re-resolution of the proposed amendment ordinances should be denied in its entirety.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench that the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the exclusion of the validity of a resolution on the amendment bill is justified, and the costs of lawsuit are borne by the losing defendant.

Justices Shin Hyun-chul (Presiding Justice)