주민자치위원해촉에대한무효확인
1. The Defendant’s dismissal disposition against the Plaintiff on December 23, 2014 is revoked.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On May 14, 2012, the Plaintiff was commissioned as a member of the residents’ autonomous council in Dongdaemun-gu Incheon Metropolitan City for a two-year term of office, and was reappointed on May 14, 2014.
B. On December 23, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the purport that he/she will be dismissed from the residents' autonomous council as of December 23, 2014 pursuant to Article 20(1)4 and 5 of the Gangnam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Establishment and Operation of the residents' autonomous council (Amended by Ordinance No. 1244, May 15, 2015; hereinafter “instant Ordinance”).
(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence No. 12, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Judgment on the main defense of this case
A. Members of the Residential Self-Governing Committee of the Defendant’s assertion are similar to the mandatory under the Civil Act, and the instant disposition is merely a party to a contractual relationship under public law, not a disposition that is subject to appeal litigation.
B. Determination 1) The issue of whether a certain act of an administrative agency can be the subject of an appeal cannot be determined abstractly and generally. In specific cases, an administrative disposition is an enforcement of law with respect to a specific fact conducted by an administrative agency as the subject of public authority, which directly affects the rights and obligations of the people. The decision should be made individually by taking into account the content and purport of the relevant Act and subordinate statutes, the subject, content, form and procedure of the act, the actual relation between the act and the disadvantage suffered by interested parties, such as the other party, and the principle of administration by the rule of law, the attitude of the administrative agency and interested parties related to the pertinent act, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Du7834, Apr. 24, 2014). According to Article 20 of the instant Ordinance, the head of the Dong may dismiss a resident autonomy member even before his/her term of office exists, and the Committee’s deliberation on the case falling under subparagraphs 4 and 5 of the said Article.