[2] Whether a municipal ordinance that aims to increase the total quota of local public officials established in a local government should obtain approval from the Minister of Home Affairs (affirmative)

[2] The ordinance that aims to increase the total number of local public officials assigned to a local government should be approved by the Minister of Home Affairs in advance pursuant to Article 103(1) of the Local Autonomy Act and Article 14(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Autonomy Act. Thus, the Ordinance enacted pursuant to Article 83(1) of the same Act shall be deemed valid only when its contents set the prescribed number of the staff for each type and class within the scope of the total number under Article 103 of the same Act.

According to the evidence Nos. 1 through 9, each of which does not dispute the establishment of Gap evidence No. 1 and the defendant, on July 22, 1996, submitted a revised municipal ordinance No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the "amended municipal ordinance No. 1"), among the 4th extraordinary meetings of the Seoul Metropolitan Council Secretariat at the fourth plenary session, the revised municipal ordinance No. 2 of the Seoul Metropolitan Council Ordinance No. 3 (hereinafter referred to as the "Ordinance No. 2") and the revised municipal ordinance No. 3 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance No. 4 (hereinafter referred to as the "Ordinance No. 3 amended") to the plaintiff on the 25th day of the same month after the resolution of the revised municipal ordinance No. 2 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance No. 4, the defendant shall request the appointment and dismissal of the National Assembly members again to the defendant on August 13 of the same year, but the defendant shall obtain the proviso to the appointment and dismissal of the newly appointed municipal ordinance No. 2 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Council No. 94, and the newly appointed Ordinance No. 2 of the Seoul Metropolitan Council No. 9

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that (1) in the case of the amendment bill of the amendment bill of Article 1, it violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Local Autonomy Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 14647 of May 16, 1995; hereinafter the same Enforcement Decree), and there is no legal basis to appoint an individual assistant officer, and that the appointment of an assistant officer to a public official belonging to the Secretariat of the local council is in violation of Article 82 and Article 84 of the Act and Article 57 of the Local Public Officials Act prohibiting political activities of public officials. (2) In the case of the amendment bill of the amendment bill of Article 2, it is against Article 83 of the Act to determine the excess of the fixed number of extraordinary civil service without prior approval of the Minister of Home Affairs. (3) In the case of the amendment bill of Article 3, it is against Article 14 and Article 16 of the Regulations on the Standards for the Administrative Organizations and Personnel of the local government (amended by the Presidential Decree.).

3. Judgment of party members

These three amendments include increasing the number of paid assistants (local public officials in extraordinary civil service equivalent to class 5) to members of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Council, under the premise that they are appointed as paid assistants (local public officials in extraordinary civil service equivalent to class 5), so they are closely related to each other, they are judged comprehensively.

A. The appointment of assistant officers who are local public officials in extraordinary civil service for the local council members causes significant changes to the current legal system on the status, status, and treatment of the local council members, which shall be stipulated by the law of the National Assembly, not by the Municipal Ordinance of each local council (the assistant officers to assist the legislative activities of the National Assembly members are also stipulated by the National Assembly Allowances, etc. Act), and Article 32 of the Act provides that the status, status, and treatment of the local council members shall be paid monthly fixed parliamentary activity expenses only for the City/Do council members in addition to public duty travel expenses and meeting allowances, and Article 32-2 of the Act provides that compensation shall be paid in the event of death or injury due to their duties during the session, and there is no other legal basis for the appointment of assistant officers who are local public officials in extraordinary civil service as well as the above Act.

In addition, Articles 82 and 84 of the Act provide that the secretariat (state, department) and clerical staff shall be placed in order to handle the affairs of the local council to the local council. This is to assist the local council in the operation of proceedings necessary for the local council to perform its functions as a deliberative organ, and to handle all administrative affairs incidental thereto. Since it does not require the local council to assist the activities inside and outside the country of each member, each of the above provisions cannot serve as a basis for the appointment of assistants to the local council members.

B. Article 32 of the Act provides that a local council member shall be an honorary position in consideration of the local financial status of our country, the full number of local council members, and the organization (representative system) of the local council. The provision that a paid assistant to a local council member shall be an honorary position is in violation of the above provision that the local council member shall be an honorary position. Furthermore, if a paid assistant to a local council member is assigned to a local council member by municipal ordinance, the expenses of all new items that are not stipulated by law shall be spent differently, and the provision of Article 15 of the Act that stipulates that the municipal ordinances shall be enacted within the scope of

C. Meanwhile, since the municipal ordinance that aims to increase the total number of local public officials assigned to a local government should obtain prior approval from the Minister of Home Affairs pursuant to Article 103(1) of the Act and Article 14(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, the municipal ordinance enacted pursuant to Article 83(1) of the Act shall be deemed effective only where the contents of the municipal ordinance set forth the fixed number of office employees by type and class within the scope of the total number of office employees under Article 103 of the Act (see Supreme Court Decision 95Do56, Oct. 15, 1996).

However, according to the above evidence and the records, it is recognized that the current number of local public officials of Seoul Special Metropolitan City is 17,606 and 15,366 and the total number is more than 2,240 as of the date of resolution on the re-resolution of the proposed amendment ordinances. The contents of the revised ordinances are not to increase the total number of employees of the Council Secretariat within the scope of the total number calculated in accordance with Article 103 of the Act, Article 14(1) of the Enforcement Decree, Article 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Regulations on the Standards, etc. for Administrative Organizations and Personnel of Local Governments, but to increase the total number of local public officials assigned to the local government. Thus, the defendant's resolution on the proposed ordinances of this case must obtain prior approval from the Minister of Home Affairs. The re-resolution of the revised ordinances without going through the above procedure violates the provisions of Article 103 of the Act and Article 14(2) of the Enforcement Decree. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on each of

4. Therefore, the re-resolution on the draft of the amended ordinances of this case by the defendant is invalid as it violates the above Acts and subordinate statutes without making any judgment on the remaining arguments of the plaintiff. 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 Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)