직무이행명령에 대한 이의
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from the participation.
1. The facts under the circumstances of the order to perform the duties do not conflict between the parties, or may be acknowledged in full view of the whole purport of the pleadings in the entries in Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 10, Eul evidence 1, and Eul evidence 4.
The Korean National Park (area 322.01mm2) revised by the Ordinance of the Permanent Residential City covers permanent cities, Gyeongyang-do and Chungcheongbuk-do, and approximately 51.6m2, among which the area corresponding to about 51.6% is located in the permanent cities, the area corresponding to 47.7% of the area of permanent residence, and the area corresponding to 47.7% of the area of permanent residence account for 17% of the area of the national park in the small and mediumsan-do.
On December 6, 2011, the permanent resident Si issued a written petition from the head of the single Myeon/Dong to request the change of the name of the administrative district from the "Yinsan Myeon/Dong" to the "Yinsan Myeon/Dong," and issued a pre-announcement of legislation from January 3, 2012 to January 25, 2012. On March 15, 2012, pursuant to the proviso to Article 4-2 (1) of the Local Autonomy Act, the permanent resident announced the amendment of the Ordinance on the Name and District of the Dong/Dong in Young-si (hereinafter referred to as the "Ordinance of this case") to the effect that the name of the "Yinsan Myeon" in the permanent resident Eup/Myeon from January 3 to January 25, 2012 is changed to the "Yinsan Myeon," and the ordinance of this case was implemented from July 1, 2012.
B. Although the amendment of the instant Municipal Ordinance was opposed to the amendment of the instant Municipal Ordinance, such as submission of a written opinion opposing the change of name during the pre-announcement period in the branch of the Local Government Central Dispute Mediation Committee’s dispute mediation decision, the Defendant’s assistant intervenor, at the stage of resolution at the permanent city council, applied on February 20, 2012 to the Defendant for dispute mediation that the Defendant would not use the “subsansan” as an administrative district in the permanent city.
The Central Dispute Mediation Committee of a Local Government (hereinafter referred to as the "Central Dispute Mediation Committee") established on June 14, 2012 by the Ordinance of this case exceeding the limit of the authority to enact ordinances on the adjustment of the name of administrative district, and shall have the duty to cooperate among local governments