[2] The method of determining the total number of local public officials assigned to a local government office and other agencies within the scope of the total number of local public officials

[3] Whether a municipal ordinance to increase the total number of local public officials established in a local government should be approved by the Minister of Home Affairs (affirmative)

[2] In full view of the provisions of Articles 83(1) and 103(1) of the former Local Autonomy Act, Articles 13(2), 14(1) and (2), 15(1) and (3), 16 through 19, and 21(1) and (2) of the Regulations on the Standards, etc. for Administrative Organizations and Personnel of Local Governments, the fixed number of local public officials under Article 103 of the same Act refers to the total number of local public officials assigned to local governments pursuant to Article 3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Regulations on the Standards, etc. for Administrative Organizations and Personnel of Local Governments, and the total number of local public officials assigned to local governments other than the Secretariat within the total fixed number means the total number of local public officials assigned to each local government pursuant to Article 21(1) of the former Regulations on the Standards, etc. for Administrative Organizations and Personnel of Local Governments; the fixed number of clerical officials established by ordinances of the local government in accordance with Article 21(1) of the former Regulations on the Standards, etc. for Local Governments.

[3] Under Article 103 (1) of the former Local Autonomy Act and Article 14 (2) of the Regulations on the Standards, etc. for Administrative Organizations and Personnel of the former Local Governments, the Ordinance to increase the total number of local public officials established in the local government should be approved by the Minister of Home Affairs in advance.

The defendant, on April 27, 195, passed a resolution on April 1, 1995 on the amendment of the Ordinance for the Establishment of the Secretariat of the Gyeonggi-do Council (hereinafter referred to as the "Ordinance of this case") in consideration of the whole purport of the pleadings in the statement Nos. 1 through 5-1 to 3, Gap evidence No. 3-1 to 4, Eul evidence No. 5-1 to 5, and the whole purport of the pleadings. The plaintiff, on May 22, 1995, passed a resolution on the amendment of the Ordinance for the Establishment of the Secretariat of the Gyeonggi-do Council (hereinafter referred to as the "Ordinance of this case"), and transferred the above Ordinance to the plaintiff on May 1, 195. The amendment of the Ordinance accompanied by financial burden violates the Local Autonomy Act since he did not hear the opinion of the head of the local government while amending the Ordinance, and ③ it is in violation of the basic spirit of the Local Autonomy Act to re-resolution the number of clerical staff under the Ordinance of this case to the plaintiff on June 15, 1 to the same purport.

2. Whether the Ordinance of this case violates the law

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the amendment bill, which increased the number of personnel of the Secretariat of the Council without the approval of the Minister of Home Affairs, violates Article 103(1) of the Local Autonomy Act (amended by Act No. 4959 of Aug. 4, 1995; hereinafter the same shall apply), Articles 13(2), 14(1) and (2) of the Regulations on the Standards for Administrative Organizations and Personnel of Local Governments (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14647 of May 16, 1995; hereinafter the same shall apply).

B. Relevant statutes

Article 103 (1) of the Act provides that local governments shall have local public officials borne at the expense of the relevant local government in accordance with the standards prescribed by the Presidential Decree. The fixed number of local public officials shall be determined by the Municipal Ordinance of the relevant local government. Accordingly, Article 13 of the Enforcement Decree provides that the fixed number of public officials shall be determined by the management agency of the fixed number (paragraph (1)), and Article 13 of the Enforcement Decree provides that the fixed number of public officials shall be determined by the management agency of the fixed number (paragraph (2) of the same Article), and Article 103 (1) of the Enforcement Decree provides that the management agency of the fixed number of public officials under paragraph (1) of the same Article shall be determined by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs (Article 14 of the Enforcement Decree). Article 103 (1) of the Act provides that a fixed number of public officials under paragraph (1) of the same Article shall be determined by the Presidential Decree within the scope of the fixed number of public officials calculated by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs in order to promote and rationalize the fixed number of public officials (Article 13).

C. Determination of party members

Article 103 of the Act provides the items of the local government's executive organs and subsidiary organs among them, but the title is referred to as "public officials of the local government", and the contents are also referred to as "public officials of the local government". Article 103 of the Act provides that the appointment, examination, qualification, remuneration, service, guarantee of status, disciplinary action, education and training of local public officials shall be provided separately by other Acts. Article 13 of the Enforcement Decree based on Article 103 (1) of the Act provides the Council Secretariat as one of the management agencies of the fixed number of local public officials in accordance with the standards prescribed by the Presidential Decree, and Article 103 of the Act provides that the central government manages the fixed number of local public officials through Presidential Decree, and there is no reasonable ground to discriminate between the local council and the executive agencies of the local council in order to promote the appropriateness of the size and the rationalization of the operation of local public officials. In light of the above, Article 103 of the Act provides that the general provision concerning local public officials and the clerical staff of the local council (Article 82 (3) of the Act) shall be applied as they are.

In addition, in full view of the provisions of Articles 83(1) and 103(1) of the Act, Article 13(2), Article 14(1) and (2), Article 15(1) and (3), Articles 16 through 19, Article 21(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree, the fixed number of local public officials under Article 103 of the Act refers to the total number of local public officials assigned to local governments calculated under Article 14(1) of the Enforcement Decree and Article 3 of the Enforcement Rule, while the total number of local public officials assigned to institutions excluding the Secretariat of the Congress within the total number of local public officials shall be determined by the Municipal Ordinance of the relevant local government, the fixed number of local public officials assigned to the Secretariat of the Council, for each type established under Article 21(1) of the Enforcement Decree, and for each class of office shall be determined by the Municipal Ordinance under Article 83(1) of the Act.

Therefore, the Ordinance that aims to increase the total number of local public officials employed by local governments should be approved by the Minister of Home Affairs in advance pursuant to Article 103(1) of the Act and Article 14(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act. Therefore, the Ordinance enacted pursuant to Article 83(1) of the Act shall be deemed valid only where the contents of the Ordinance set the fixed number of clerical staff by type and class within the scope of the total fixed number under Article 103 of the Act.

However, considering the above evidence and the whole purport of evidence No. 1-4 and No. 1-3 and No. 3-2, the contents of the Ordinance of this case are not to increase only the number of employees of the Council Secretariat within the scope of the total number calculated under Article 103 of the Act, Article 14(1) of the Enforcement Decree, and Article 3 of the Enforcement Rule, but to increase the total number of local public officials assigned to local governments. Thus, the defendant's resolution of the Ordinance of this case should obtain prior approval from the Minister of Home Affairs in accordance with Article 103(1) of the Act and Article 14(2) of the Enforcement Decree, and it is against the provisions of Article 103 of the Act and Article 14(2) of the Enforcement Decree. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on this point is justified.

3. Therefore, the re-resolution of the amendment bill of this case made by the defendant is invalid as it violates the above Act and subordinate statutes without making a decision 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 with the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)