B. Demanding and clarifying that the suspension of an administrative disposition is likely to seriously affect public welfare when suspending its validity

(c) Where it is evident that there is no possibility to cancel an administrative disposition in the principal lawsuit, whether the administrative disposition is suspended;

B. The suspension of the validity of an administrative disposition shall be permitted without any possibility of seriously affecting the public welfare, and the disposition agency has the responsibility to assert and explain that it is likely to seriously affect the public welfare.

C. In a case of applying for the suspension of the validity of an administrative disposition, the legitimacy of the administrative disposition itself is ultimately determined through a review in the judgment on the merits, and it is not, in principle, determined as a matter of principle, and the existence or absence of the requirements under Article 23(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act regarding whether to suspend the validity of the administrative disposition is subject to determination, but it is contrary to the purport of the system to recognize the suspension of the validity of the disposition even though there is no possibility to cancel the disposition in the merits lawsuit. Therefore, in a case of the suspension of the validity itself, if it is obvious that

The validity of the Re-Appellant's non-Confidence resolution against the applicant for the suspension of validity (hereinafter referred to as the "applicant") of the re-Appellant's re-appellant's re-appellant's case is suspended, so the applicant becomes entitled to exercise his authority as the Speaker of the Re-Appellant's Council. However, in the case of cancellation of the non-Confidence resolution against the re-Appellant's Council or the application for suspension of validity of this case incidental thereto, the applicant shall be excluded from the status as the representative of the re-Appellant's Council, who is the opposite party (see Article 62 of the Local Autonomy Act). Thus, the re-appeal of this case filed

2. As to the first ground for reappeal

The chairman of the local council shall represent the local council, arrange the proceedings, maintain order in the meeting of the council, supervise the affairs of the council, and have the authority to attend and speak at the committee (see Articles 43 and 44 of the Local Autonomy Act). Since the non-Confidence resolution on the chairman of the local council with the above authority shall be an administrative disposition that deprives the chairman of the authority as the chairman, which is subject to appeal litigation, the validity of the application in this case shall be decided on the premise that the lawsuit for the suspension of validity of the application in this case is legitimate, and the order of the court below shall not be deemed to have erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the subject of administrative litigation, such as the theory of lawsuit

3. As to the second ground for reappeal

A. The suspension of the validity of an administrative disposition shall not be permitted to have a serious impact on the public welfare, and it is likely to have a significant impact on the public welfare. However, in this case, even if it is based on the supporting materials submitted by the re-appellant, it is not sufficient to vindicate that the effect of the non-Confidence resolution could have a significant impact on the public welfare. Therefore, we accept the order of the court below that held to the same purport, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles of burden of proof, misunderstanding facts or misunderstanding the legal principles on the requirements of the suspension of the validity, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there

B. In a case of applying for the suspension of the validity of an administrative disposition, the legitimacy of the administrative disposition itself is ultimately determined through a deliberation in the judgment on the merits, and in principle, it is not required to determine the validity of the administrative disposition itself, and the existence of the requirements under Article 23(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act regarding whether to suspend the validity of the administrative disposition, but it is contrary to the purport of the system to recognize the validity of the disposition despite the absence of possibility of revocation of the disposition in the merits lawsuit, so it is contrary to the purport of the system. Thus, if it is obvious that the applicant's request for the suspension of the validity of the administrative disposition itself is groundless, the suspension of the validity of the administrative disposition cannot be ordered as pointed out (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 92Du30, Aug. 7, 1992; Order 92

The applicant refers to two substantive illegalitys that the non-Confidence resolution of this case is referred to the plenary session without going through an examination of the steering committee, which is the competent standing committee, and that the applicant does not violate any statute or fails to perform his duties without any justifiable reason. Thus, there are no grounds for the non-Confidence resolution of the Speaker as stipulated in Article 48(1) of the Local Autonomy Act.

First of all, as to procedural illegality, if there is procedural defect, such as the proposal quorum and quorum under Article 49(2) of the Local Autonomy Act, or the absence of the deliberation by the competent standing committee, etc., the resolution of this case is subject to cancellation by illegality. However, according to subparagraph 3-1, 2, and 3-3, it is proved that the resolution of this case has undergone the deliberation of the steering committee, so the above argument about the procedural illegality of the applicant is clear that there is no reason.

Then, Article 49 (1) of the Local Autonomy Act provides that "When the president violates the Acts and subordinate statutes or fails to perform his duties without any justifiable reason" as the requirements for a non-Confidence resolution for the chairman of the local council. As to the fact that the applicant among the reasons for non-Confidence, among the reasons for non-Confidence, among the applicants, distributed the money and valuables at the time of the election of the chairman, it is insufficient to clearly explain the fact even if the re-appellant submitted to the court below and the court below, and the remainder of the reasons for non-Confidence is difficult to be deemed to constitute the time when he violates the Acts and subordinate statutes or fails to perform his duties without any justifiable reason, and even in the case of the explanatory materials submitted by the re-appellant, it is insufficient to clearly explain the reasons for such non-Confidence. Accordingly, the above argument about the

Therefore, since the main claim for the suspension of validity of this case is not clear that it is without reason, the court below's acceptance of the application for the suspension of validity of this case, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the requirements for the suspension of validity of administrative disposition, such as the theory of lawsuit, which affected the decision.

4. Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)