The following facts may be acknowledged in light of the whole purport of the pleadings in the descriptions of Gap evidence 1-1, 2, Gap evidence 2, 3, Gap evidence 4, 5-1, and 2.

A. The Defendant passed a resolution on September 18, 2007 and transferred the Ordinance to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff demanded re-resolution on the ground that some of the contents of the Ordinance were in violation of the statute, but the Defendant, on November 1, 2007, re-resolutioned and finalized the Ordinance as the original bill.

B. Article 3 (Classification of Foreign Investment Enterprises within Free Economic Zones), Articles 4 (Foreign Investment Environment Establishment Operators), 5 (Foreign Investment Environment Establishment Operators), and Article 6 (Development Project Operators), Article 3 (3) of the Ordinance prior to the amendment (Evidence A 3) of the Incheon Metropolitan City Ordinance prior to the amendment (hereinafter referred to as the “Council”) stipulates that the chairperson shall be the executive market and that two members shall be recommended by the Council, and five or less members shall be elected by the chairperson of the Council (Article 7 (2) and (3)). Article 8 (Article 8 (3) was added to the function of the Council to “matters concerning the conclusion of agreements related to foreign investment in the Incheon Free Economic Zone” (Article 7 (2) and (3).

2. Whether each of the draft ordinances violates Acts and subordinate statutes;

A. Part concerning the special cases concerning sale, loan, etc. of land under Articles 4 and 6 of the Ordinance

Article 4 of the Ordinance of this case provides that a foreign-capital invested company located in a free economic zone (hereinafter referred to as "foreign-capital invested company located in a free economic zone") shall meet the standards for tax reduction and exemption under the Ordinance on the Restriction of Special Taxation, which is required for foreign-capital invested companies located in a free economic zone to be granted special exceptions to the sale, lease, etc. of land to foreign-capital invested companies (hereinafter referred to as "foreign-capital invested companies") which are the implementers of development projects implemented

Article 16(5) of the Act on Designation and Management of Free Economic Zones (hereinafter “Free Economic Zones Act”) provides that “The State and local governments may use, profit from, lease or sell national or public property owned by the State or local governments to development project implementers or relocating foreign-capital invested companies through a free contract, notwithstanding the provisions of the State Property Act, public property and Commodity Management Act and other Acts,” thereby granting local governments the authority to lease or sell public property through a free contract, but does not provide for specific standards to be granted such special cases.

In full view of the legislative intent of Article 16(5) of the Free Economic Zone Act as well as the fact that the management of public property is the autonomous affairs of a local government, the Free Economic Zone Act does not purport to exclude the determination of the qualification standards, etc. for foreign-invested enterprises eligible for granting special cases concerning the sale of public property in compliance with the actual circumstances of the local government. Thus, Articles 4 and 6 of the Ordinance of this case cannot be deemed to have violated higher statutes or violated the essential part of the authority to execute the head of the local government (the subject of the regulation of Articles 4 and 6 of the Ordinance of this case does not include state property, but does not restrict

In the end, the plaintiff's assertion that this provision is illegal by deviating from the limit of the legislative authority is without merit.

(b) Article 7(2) and (3) of the Ordinance;

(1) Article 7(2) of the Ordinance of this case provides that "the chairperson of the Council shall be elected from among and by its members." Article 23(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Foreign Investment Promotion Act provides that "the chairperson of the Council shall be a public official of at least the director general level among the public officials belonging to

Article 7 (2) of the Ordinance provides that the method of election of the chairperson of the Council shall be in violation of Article 23 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Foreign Investment Promotion Act, which is a higher law.

(2) Article 7 (3) of the Ordinance of this case stipulates that the chairperson of the Council shall appoint not more than five City Council members as members of the Council. Since the above provision infringes upon the market's inherent authority by allowing the chairperson to actively intervene in the personnel rights of the market in advance as an individual qualification, it is illegal to deviate from the limit of the legislative authority of the Ordinance.

(c) Article 8 subparagraph 3 of the Ordinance;

Article 8(3) of the Ordinance of this case provides for matters concerning the conclusion of investment-related agreements by foreign investors within the Incheon Free Economic Zone as a result of deliberation and resolution by the Council.

However, according to Articles 4, 6(1)5, 12, and 9 of the Free Economic Zone Act, and Article 8(2)4-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Free Economic Zone Act, the confirmation of a development plan for a free economic zone, approval of an implementation plan for a development project implemented within a free economic zone belongs to the authority of the Minister, and the said development plan and implementation plan shall include a plan for attracting foreign investments, respectively.

Matters concerning the conclusion of the agreement related to foreign investors in the Incheon Free Economic Zone, which is stipulated by Article 8 subparagraph 3 of the Ordinance as the deliberation and resolution of the Council, can be implemented by the Minister of Foreign Investment inducement plan included in the development plan or implementation plan, which is determined or approved by the Minister, which is within the authority of the Minister.

Therefore, Article 8 subparag. 3 of the Ordinance is stipulated as a municipal ordinance without delegation of the Act. Therefore, it is illegal because it exceeds the limit of the legislative power of the Ordinance.

3. Conclusion

As seen above, as long as some provisions of the Ordinance of this case violate the law, the re-resolution of the Ordinance of this case shall be denied in its entirety. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Cha Han-sung (Presiding Justice)