Cases where the Ordinance is invalid because it violates the Local Autonomy Act and the Enforcement Decree thereof.

According to Article 125(3) of the Local Autonomy Act and Article 46(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the number of inspectors of the Si shall not exceed five, and even if the number is the maximum five, a local council member shall not be an inspector only one inspector, and therefore, Article 2 of the Addenda of the Ordinance on the Appointment and Operation of an Inspector for Settlement of Accounts of the City, which shall appoint two inspectors only for the year 1995, shall be null and void as it violates the Local Autonomy Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

Article 125(3) of the Local Autonomy Act, Articles 46(1) and 46(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Autonomy Act

[Defendant-Appellee] Attorney Park Jong-ho, Counsel for defendant-appellee

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 3 others

March 28, 1995

1. The re-resolution on the draft of the Ordinance on the Appointment and Operation of an Inspector for the Settlement of Accounts at ASEAN, which was made by the defendant on February 17, 1995, shall not be effective.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

(1) On January 24, 1995, at the second extraordinary session, the Defendant passed a resolution to amend the Ordinance on the Appointment and Operation of the Inspector for Settlement of Accounts of the Asia-si, the Plaintiff submitted to the Plaintiff on January 28 of the same year, and the Plaintiff demanded reconsideration on February 7 of the same year since Article 2 of the Addenda to the Ordinance violates the Local Autonomy Act and the Enforcement Decree. Accordingly, the Defendant re-resolutiond the same contents as the previous one at the sixth extraordinary session of February 17 of the same year, and Article 2 of the Ordinance of this case provides, “The fixed number of the members shall be not less than three but not more than five, but not more than one third of the total number of the City Council members in this case.” However, Article 2 (2) of the Addenda provides, “The members shall be two members of the City Council only within the year of 1995.” There is no dispute between the parties.

(2) Article 125(3) of the Local Autonomy Act provides that matters necessary for the appointment and operation of inspectors who conduct the settlement inspection of revenues and expenditures of local governments shall be delegated to the Presidential Decree (Article 125(3) of the Act). The Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that the number of inspectors shall be not less than three but not more than five (3) and matters necessary for the fixed number, method of appointment, operation and reimbursement of actual expenses shall be determined by the Municipal Ordinance of the relevant local government (Article 46(1) of the Enforcement Decree). The above inspectors shall be appointed from among those with expertise and experience in finance management, such as the pertinent local council members or certified public accountants, and in this case, the number of inspectors of the Si shall not exceed five (5) under the above Enforcement Decree of the Local Autonomy Act (Article 46(2).

(3) Therefore, if part of the Ordinance of this case is unlawful and so, the re-resolution of the Ordinance of this case shall be denied in its entirety. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted, and the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)