[2] In a case where the local government's organization fails to faithfully implement the mediation decision despite the local autonomy dispute mediation decision was made with respect to autonomous affairs, which are affairs subject to dispute mediation under Article 148 of the Local Autonomy Act, whether the head of the local government can issue an order for performance of duties to implement the mediation decision (affirmative)

[2] According to Articles 148(7) and 170(1) of the Local Autonomy Act, with respect to a local government which fails to faithfully perform the matters of mediation decision in spite of the decision to mediate disputes concerning autonomous affairs that may be subject to dispute resolution under Article 148 of the Local Autonomy Act, the head of the local government who represents the local government by applying Article 170 mutatis mutandis under Article 148(7) may order the head of the local government who represents the local government to perform his duties in order to implement the matters of mediation decision.

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or acknowledged by Gap evidence 1 through Gap evidence 10, Eul evidence 1, and Eul evidence 4 based on the whole purport of the pleadings.

(a) the amendment and promulgation of municipal ordinances of permanent residence;

So, U.S. National Park (area 322.01 K.K.) is a permanent Si, Gyeongbuk-do and Chungcheongbuk-do single-gun. Among them, approximately 51.6% area is located in the permanent Si, 47.7% area is located in the single-gun, and the permanent Sinsan-si account for 17% of the area of the national park.

On December 6, 2011, the permanent resident city submitted a petition from the head of the single Myeon of Si/Gu to request the change of the name of the administrative district from the head of Si/Gu to the Si/Gun/Gu in the territory of Si/Gu in the territory of Si/Gun/Gu from January 3, 2012 to January 25, 2012. Pursuant to the proviso to Article 4-2 (1) of the Local Autonomy Act, on March 15, 2012, the permanent resident has amended and promulgated the Ordinance on the Name and District of Si/Gu/Eup/Myeon/Dong (hereinafter referred to as the "Ordinance of this case") with the content of changing the name of the Si/Gu/Eup/Myeon/Dong in the territory of Si/Myeon/Dong from January 3 to January 25, 2012.

(b) Decision of dispute mediation by the Local Government Central Dispute Mediation Committee;

In the Gyang-gun, there was an objection to the amendment of the Ordinance of this case, such as submission of a written opinion opposing the change of name during the pre-announcement period. However, on February 20, 2012, the Defendant’s assistant intervenor filed an application with the Defendant for dispute mediation to ensure that the Defendant does not use the term “protesan” in the permanent city as an administrative district in the pre-announcement period.

On June 14, 2012, the Central Dispute Mediation Committee of a local government (hereinafter referred to as the “Central Dispute Mediation Committee”) made a resolution on the instant dispute mediation that the instant municipal ordinance exceeded the bounds of the authority to enact municipal ordinances on the adjustment of the name of administrative district, violated the duty to cooperate among local governments, infringed on the legal interests of other citizens outside the jurisdiction of jurisdiction, and exceeded the limits of local autonomy, thereby citing the instant dispute mediation request that the Defendant’s Intervenor demands the adjustment of the cross-industrial area from the permanent resident city not to use the cross-industrial area as the pro rata area (hereinafter referred to as “instant dispute mediation decision”).

C. The defendant's order to perform his duties

On June 18, 2012, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the instant dispute mediation decision, and demanded the Plaintiff to take measures pursuant to Article 148 of the Local Autonomy Act and submit an implementation plan pursuant to Article 86 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

Accordingly, from June 20, 2012, the Plaintiff suspended the implementation of the change of the name of the administrative district and notified the relevant agencies thereof, and promoted the suspension of the implementation of the change of name on the permanent website, and submitted a implementation plan to the Defendant. However, on June 26, 2012, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to implement the instant municipal ordinance by August 10, 2012 on the ground that there is no implementation plan for the amendment of the instant municipal ordinance in the Plaintiff’s implementation plan.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The change of the name of the administrative district under the instant ordinances is autonomous affairs, which do not infringe on the legal interests of the single-do governor or the single-Gun residents, and thus does not fall under the subject of deliberation and resolution by the Central Dispute Mediation Committee, and cannot be seen as violating the mutual cooperation duty between the local governments or exceeding the inherent limits of the local autonomy. Thus, the instant dispute mediation decision is unlawful and premised on such order is also unlawful.

B. In addition to the Plaintiff’s implementation of the conciliation decision stipulated in the instant dispute conciliation decision, the instant dispute settlement decision merely accepted the application for dispute settlement, but did not amend the instant municipal ordinance, the instant order for performance of duties is unlawful for the reason that the matters of conciliation decision were not faithfully implemented. In addition, since the amendment of municipal ordinance is within the jurisdiction of the local council, the instant order for performance of duties, which had the head of the local government revise the municipal ordinance of this case, shall be deemed unlawful, as well as the instant order for performance of duties, which had the head of the local government revise the municipal ordinance of this case, shall be deemed to have been issued at the time of permanent residence as a local government, and even if it was issued at the time of permanent residence as a local government, control over municipal ordinances can only be conducted pursuant to the provisions of Articles 26(3), 107(1), and 172

3. Determination

A. Whether a decision on dispute mediation is lawful

Article 148(1) of the Local Autonomy Act provides, “The Minister of Government Administration and Home Affairs or the Mayor/Do governor may mediate disputes in the course of performing the affairs between local governments or between heads of local governments upon the request of the parties, unless otherwise provided for in other Acts: Provided, That the Minister of Government Administration and Home Affairs or the Mayor/Do governor may mediate the disputes in accordance with the resolution of the Central Dispute Mediation Committee or the Local Government Dispute Mediation Committee, after consultation with the heads of relevant central administrative agencies, if he/she intends to mediate the disputes under paragraph (1) without delay, if he/she intends to make a decision on the mediation pursuant to paragraph (1).”

In light of the above contents and structure of the Local Autonomy Act, the legislative intent of the Local Autonomy Act, which is different from the above contents and structure, is to resolve disputes arising in the course of handling affairs between local governments or between heads of local governments, by conducting binding conciliation procedures upon request of the parties or ex officio, and the autonomous affairs are not excluded from the subject of dispute conciliation. In a case where the autonomous affairs of a local government are not only an internal effect on the local government, but also infringes upon other local governments or their residents' interests worth protecting their residents, the subject of dispute conciliation as prescribed in Article 148 of the Local Autonomy Act may be the subject

The change of the name of a "shortsan area" in the jurisdiction of the permanent resident under the proviso to Article 4-2 (1) of the Local Autonomy Act to a "shortsan area" constitutes autonomous affairs, such as the adjustment of the name, location, and area of the administrative district within the jurisdiction of the permanent resident under Article 9 (2) 1 (a) of the Local Autonomy Act.

However, the term “small and medium enterprise”, which intends to use the name of the area as the name of the area within its jurisdiction, is the unique name of the nation-known mountain, and has a variety of interests among the local governments and residents adjacent to the small and medium enterprise, including the small and medium enterprise area. Many local governments and residents adjacent to the small and medium enterprise area have used the name of the small and medium enterprise area as the name of the Eup/Myeon/Dong of a specific local government for a long time. Thus, it is deemed that the name of the small and medium enterprise is the name of the administrative district of the specific local government, and that the small and medium enterprise area itself is enjoying the benefit accruing from the use of the name of the small area.

In full view of these facts, if the permanent resident's name is unilaterally used as the name of the administrative district within his/her jurisdiction pursuant to the proviso of Article 4-2 (1) of the Local Autonomy Act, it is likely that the interests worth protecting, including the benefits of using the name of the local government and the residents adjacent to the small and medium area may be infringed specifically and directly. The Plaintiff's act of unilaterally using the name of the small and medium area as the face name under the proviso of Article 4-2 (1) of the Local Autonomy Act needs to be reasonably controlled, and such control may not be deemed to damage the nature of the local

Therefore, even if the permanent market price changes the name of the original state within its jurisdiction, changing the name of the "shortest area" to the "shortest area" constitutes a business subject to dispute mediation under Article 148 of the Local Autonomy Act, and on the premise of such change, the contents of the mediation decision prescribed in the instant dispute mediation decision cannot be deemed unlawful. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant order for performance of duties is unlawful on the premise that the instant dispute mediation decision is unlawful is not acceptable.

B. Whether an order for performance of duties is lawful

Article 148(7) of the Local Autonomy Act provides, “The Minister of Government Administration and Home Affairs or the Mayor/Do governor may require the local government to implement the adjustment decision by applying mutatis mutandis Article 170 if the matters of mediation decision pursuant to paragraphs (4) through (6) are not faithfully implemented.” Article 170(1) of the same Act provides, “If the head of the local government clearly neglects the management and execution of the state delegated affairs or City/Do entrusted affairs under the provisions of Acts and subordinate statutes, he/she may order the competent Minister for City/Do, and the competent Mayor/Do governor for Si/Gun/autonomous Gu, to implement the adjustment decision in writing within a fixed period of time for the head of the local government who represents the local government, by applying mutatis mutandis Article 148(7) of the Local Autonomy Act.” According to the above provision, the head of the local government may order the head of the local government, who is not bona fide, to implement the adjustment decision by applying mutatis mutandis Article 170 to the head of the local government, other than the Eup/Myeon/autonomous Gu.

Examining the aforementioned facts in light of the relevant provisions and legal principles, it cannot be said that the Plaintiff faithfully performed the conciliation decision on the ground that the Plaintiff’s change of the name was suspended and the suspension of the enforcement of name was not actually used by the relevant agency, on the ground that the Intervenor’s permanent resident registration application was filed for dispute settlement that it does not use the “small and Medium Enterprise” as the administrative district within its jurisdiction, and the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the decision. However, the instant Ordinance was maintained to change the name of the “YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

Therefore, the defendant may order the plaintiff who represents permanent residence under Articles 148 (7) and 170 of the Local Autonomy Act to perform his duties, and there is no violation of law as alleged by the plaintiff. This part of the plaintiff's assertion cannot be accepted.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, since the order to perform the duties of this case is lawful, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim So-young (Presiding Justice)