A. Whether the effect of the re-resolution should be denied in a case where only a part of the matters resolved by the local council is illegal

(b) Whether a bill of municipal ordinance prescribing to exclude Provincial Council members from eligibility as members of the Urban Planning Committee;

C. Scope of the legislative power of local governments

(d) Whether the ordinances of the local urban planning committee stipulate that the agenda and result of the meeting shall be reported to the Provincial Council are illegal;

A. The exclusion of the validity of a part of a resolution is nothing more than to alter the overall contents of the resolution, and thus, it would be an infringement on the local council’s inherent authority, which is the decision-making agency. Moreover, the exclusion of a part of the decision-making is likely to change the overall contents of the resolution to any content different from the original intent of the local council. In addition, even if the objection pointed out in the request for reconsideration is about a part of the resolution, the entire resolution is invalidated and only a resolution takes effect, and thus, the request for reconsideration or re-resolution is not allowed, in light of the fact that the whole resolution is not a whole of the re-resolution but only a part of it is illegal, the effect of the re-resolution shall be denied.

B. According to Article 76(2) of the Urban Planning Act and Article 58-2(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, a City/Do Council member shall participate as a member of the Urban Planning Committee. The purpose of this Act is to ensure the independence by separating the authority of the Council as a deliberative body and the authority of the head of an organization as an executive body, but to maintain balance by preventing a deliberation at the disadvantage of residents by directly participating in urban planning matters related to the interests of residents in the relevant region and reflecting the opinions of residents in the Advisory Committee. Therefore, the provision that a City/Do Council member excludes the members of the Urban Planning Committee from those subject to which the Do Council member may commission

C. According to the provisions of Articles 15 and 9 of the Local Autonomy Act, the matters of local government’s enactment of municipal ordinances are limited to autonomous affairs, which are the inherent affairs of local governments, and the so-called delegated affairs to local governments under individual laws

D. In light of the provisions of Article 75(1) of the Urban Planning Act and Article 60 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, deliberation of matters delegated by the Central Urban Planning Committee among the affairs of the Local Urban Planning Committee cannot be deemed as the autonomous affairs of local governments or the so-called delegated affairs of local governments. Therefore, the Local Urban Planning Committee cannot enact a municipal ordinance that requires the Local Urban Planning Committee to report the matters delegated as above to the Provincial Council on the matters delegated as above, and it is merely a matter that the Local Urban Planning Committee to give advice to the Governor or voluntarily, and the Governor is not bound by the Governor's opinion. Therefore, it cannot establish a municipal ordinance that requires the Local Council to report the matters concerning the advice of the Governor. Therefore, among the revised municipal ordinances of the Gyeonggi Urban Planning Committee, the provisions that require the Chairperson to report the matters to be deliberated by the Do Council and the results of its deliberation to the Do Council in advance. It is unlawful as it was in violation of

(a) Article 159(b) of the Local Autonomy Act; Article 76(2) of the Urban Planning Act; Article 58-2(3)(d) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act; Articles 15 and 9 of the Local Autonomy Act; Article 75(1) of the Urban Planning Act; Article 60 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act;

A.B. (c) Supreme Court Decision 93Hu151 delivered on May 10, 1994 (Dong) is Supreme Court Decision 92Hu31 delivered on July 28, 1992 (Gong192, 2575). Supreme Court Decision 93Hu175 delivered on April 26, 1994 (Gong194Sang, 1506)

Gyeonggi-do Attorney Kim Tae-tae, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Attorney Lee Young-su et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant of the Gyeonggi-do Council

April 26, 1994

A re-resolution on the amendment of the Ordinance of the Gyeonggi Urban Planning Committee, which was made by the defendant on July 8, 1993, has no effect. Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

1. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is unlawful since the plaintiff's assertion that some of the draft of the amended Municipal Ordinance is invalid, without seeking a nullification confirmation as to the provision, and sought a nullification confirmation as to the draft of the amended Municipal Ordinance.

In light of the fact that the exclusion of the effect of a part of a resolution is nothing more than changing the overall contents of the resolution, and thus, it would infringe the local council's inherent authority, which is the deliberative body, and the exclusion of only that part of the resolution may be changed to any content different from the original intent of the local council. In addition, when a request for reconsideration is made, even though the objection pointed out in the request for reconsideration is about a part of the resolution, the entire resolution is invalidated and only the resolution takes effect as a resolution and the request for reconsideration or re-resolution is not allowed (Article 19 (3) of the Local Autonomy Act and Article 37 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act), the whole effect of the re-resolution shall be denied if not only the whole contents of the resolution but only a part of the resolution is illegal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da31, Jul. 28, 1992). The defendant's argument is without merit.

2. According to the evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the defendant, who does not dispute the establishment of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 5, passed a resolution of amendment of the Do Urban Planning Committee Ordinance No. 64th of March 30, 1993 at the 4th extraordinary session of the Gyeonggi-do Council, which was submitted by the plaintiff, to the plaintiff on April 1 of the same year. The plaintiff requested reconsideration on April 15 of the same year on the ground that the above amendment Ordinance No. 1 violated the requirements for the composition of members stipulated in the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Planning Act according to the request for reconsideration by the Minister of Home Affairs, but the defendant re-resolutiond the same contents as the previous at the 1st regular session of the 68th extraordinary session of July 8 of the same year. Article 2(3) of the amended Ordinance No. 5 of the same year provides that "the members shall be appointed or commissioned by the Governor from among public officials and persons with knowledge and experience in urban planning, but the number of members who are not public officials shall be reported to the result of the meeting."

(1) As to Article 2(3) of the amended Municipal Ordinance, Article 76(2) of the Urban Planning Act provides that matters necessary for the establishment and operation of the local urban planning committee shall be prescribed by Municipal Ordinance of the pertinent local government within the extent prescribed by Presidential Decree. Article 58-2(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that the number of members who are public officials of the City/Do Council and those who have knowledge and experience in the urban planning shall be at least 2/3 of the total number of members, and that the City/Do Council members shall participate in the urban planning committee as members of the City/Do Council. The purport of this Ordinance is to guarantee the independence of the power of the Provincial Council as a decision-making body and the authority of the head of the organization as an executive body separately, but this Advisory Committee shall directly participate in the urban planning matters related to the interests of local residents and reflect the opinions of the residents, thereby maintaining balance

Thus, Article 2 (3) of the amended Ordinance stipulates that Do Council members shall be excluded from those of the urban planning committee members commissioned by the plaintiff is illegal as it violates the provisions and purport of the Urban Planning Act. The plaintiff's assertion on this point is with merit.

(2) According to the provisions of Articles 5(3) and 9 of the next Amendment Ordinance, the Health Board, and Articles 15 and 9 of the Local Autonomy Act, the local government may enact its ordinances, which are the inherent affairs of the local government, and the autonomous affairs, which are the autonomous affairs of the local government, and the affairs delegated to the local government by the individual laws and regulations (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da31 delivered on July 28, 192).

However, according to Article 75(1) of the Urban Planning Act and Article 60 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the Local Urban Planning Committee provides that the deliberation of matters delegated among matters under the jurisdiction of the Central Urban Planning Committee on urban planning and the consultation of the Do Governor on certain matters concerning urban planning. Therefore, deliberation on matters delegated by the Central Urban Planning Committee (see Article 68 of the Urban Planning Act) among its administrative affairs shall not be deemed to constitute autonomous affairs of local governments or delegated affairs of the so-called organization. Therefore, the local council cannot enact municipal ordinances that require the Local Urban Planning Committee to report the matters

In addition, the affairs as the advisory body of the Do governor are merely to provide opinions that will serve as a reference to the decision-making of the Do governor in response to the advice of the Do governor or voluntarily, and the Do Governor is not bound by the opinion, so it is not possible for the local council to enact ordinances that require the Do Council to report the agenda for the consultation

Ultimately, Articles 5(3) and 9 of the Amendment Ordinance stipulate that the Chairperson of the Local Urban Planning Committee shall deliberate on the agenda items to be deliberated by the Do Council and report the results of its meetings in advance and ex post facto to the Do Council is a new provision that cannot be enacted by municipal ordinance, and it is illegal and illegal in violation of Article 15 of the Local Autonomy Act and the Urban Planning Act. The plaintiff's

3. Therefore, since the bill of the amended Ordinance, which the defendant re-decided, is invalid as unlawful, 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 Chocheon-sik (Presiding Justice)