logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2016.04.29 2016구합25
부작위위법확인 및 선거구획정청구등
Text

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. The plaintiffs' assertion ① generalism of administrative litigation, guarantee of citizens' right to trial, and power of the court under the Constitution, etc., if the rights and interests of the people were infringed by public authority, there should not occur a gap in remedy. ② In the event that the rights and interests of the people were infringed by an administrative action that denies disposition according to the nature and supplement as a comprehensive lawsuit of parties, it is possible to remedy through a party lawsuit; ③ in the event that the public law on the rights and interests of the people guaranteed by the Constitution do not specifically form legal relations due to legislative omission, it is possible to file a lawsuit to confirm the existence of legal relations in public law. In full view of the above, it is possible to control judicial control over legislative omission through a party lawsuit having the nature of a lawsuit seeking confirmation.

However, on October 30, 2014, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision of inconsistency with the Constitution to order the provisional application of the entire electoral zone of this case until the legislators revised on December 31, 2015 (hereinafter “the entire electoral zone of this case”) pursuant to Article 25(2) attached Table 1 of the former Public Official Election Act (amended by Act No. 11374, Feb. 29, 2012), which exceeds the standard for 33 free evaluation (population 2:1) of the population size of the election district of this case (hereinafter “the entire electoral zone of this case”) and infringes on the right to vote and the right to equality of the petitioners who completed their resident registration in the area where the electoral zone of this case is located, and the entire electoral zone of this case is indivisible. Thus, according to Article 25(2) of the former Public Official Election Act (amended by Act No. 11374, Dec. 31, 2015; hereinafter “former Public Official Election Act”).

arrow