According to the evidence evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the defendant passed a resolution on June 1, 199 on the draft of the Ordinance on the Establishment and Operation of the Incheon Metropolitan City Council for Public Officials (hereinafter referred to as the "Ordinance of this case") at the 2nd plenary session of the 71st extraordinary session of the 1999 and transferred it to the plaintiff on that day, and among the plaintiff's members who received orders from the Minister of Government Administration and Home Affairs on the 11th of the same month, the plaintiff's re-resolution was requested on the ground that the provisions of Article 13, which provide that "the duties necessary for the operation of the Council may be performed during working hours may be performed during the working hours," but the fact that the defendant re-resolution was made on the basis that the provisions of Article 13, which stated

2. Whether the Ordinance of this case violates the statutes

Article 2(1) of the Act on the Establishment and Operation of the Public Officials' Council (amended by Act No. 5516, Feb. 24, 1998; hereinafter referred to as the "Act") provides for basic matters for public officials prohibited from the establishment of a labor union under the relevant provisions of the State Public Officials Act and the Local Public Officials Act to establish and operate a workplace council (hereinafter referred to as the "council") for the purpose of improving the working environment, improving the efficiency of duties, and resolving grievances. Article 2(1) provides that public officials working for the State agencies, local governments, and their subordinate agencies may establish a council; Article 5(1) provides that the council may establish a council; Article 5(1) provides that the head of the affiliated agency (hereinafter referred to as the "head of the agency"); matters concerning the improvement of the work environment inherent to the agency; matters concerning the improvement of work efficiency; matters concerning general grievances related to the public officials' duties; and matters necessary for the organization and operation of the council shall be delegated to the President or municipal ordinances.

On the other hand, Article 48 of the Local Public Officials Act provides that all public officials shall observe Acts and subordinate statutes and perform their duties faithfully, and Article 56(1) provides that public officials shall not engage in any profit-making business other than public service and shall not concurrently hold another office without permission from the head of agency. Article 58(1) provides that public officials shall not engage in any labor campaign or engage in any collective activity other than public service, thereby imposing a duty of good faith and duty of care on public officials.

Article 13 of the Ordinance of this case is interpreted to the effect that a member of the Council can perform the duties necessary for the operation of the Council during working hours in accordance with the decision of the Council or his decision. In light of the above-mentioned provisions and the purport of the Act, the duty of care of public officials in health class may be reduced or exempted through the procedures such as approval of the head of the agency in accordance with certain procedures, and public officials cannot make a decision arbitrarily, and in view of the functions of the Council prescribed by the Act, the activities of the Council shall be guaranteed within the scope of occasional activities outside working hours in principle. However, Article 13 of the Ordinance of this case can be interpreted as granting a public official himself/herself the right of exemption from the duty of care to perform the duties of the Council, which is a member of the Council, so that public officials who are members of the Council can perform the duties necessary for the activities of the Council prior to the performance of their duties. Accordingly, it cannot be said that Article 48 and Article 56 (1) of the Local Public Officials Act is violated and the purpose of

3. Conclusion

Therefore, as long as Article 13 of the Bill of this case is in violation of the above law, even if the remaining provisions do not violate the law, the re-resolution of the Ordinance of this case is bound to deny its whole validity (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da107, Oct. 18, 1996). Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and it is ultimately accepted, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant who is the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges

Justices Cho Cho-Un (Presiding Justice)