A. Whether the authority to appoint and commission members of an organization may restrict the appointment and commission authority of the head of an organization by municipal ordinance where the authority to appoint and commission members of an organization is granted to the head of a local government in full charge (negative)

(b) The case holding that the amendment of the Municipal Ordinance of the Daegu Metropolitan City Urban Planning Committee, which requires the consent of the City Council before appointing or commissioning members of the Local Urban Planning Committee, is unlawful as it violates Article 76 (2) of the Urban Planning Act, Article 58-2 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 15 of the Local Autonomy Act;

A. The appointment and commission authority of the head of a local government may be granted only by the Municipal Ordinance to the appointment authority of the head of a local government under the Municipal Ordinance. However, unless the upper law provides for the appointment and commission authority of the head of an organization, such as granting the appointment and commission authority of the members of an organization but obtaining the consent of the Council on the exercise of the appointment and commission authority, or provides for such restrictions to be granted by the Municipal Ordinance, the appointment and commission authority shall be deemed exclusively granted to the head of an organization. Therefore, the Municipal Ordinance, which is a subordinate law, shall not restrict the appointment and commission authority of the head of an organization. The Municipal Ordinance, which provides for the above restrictions, shall not be enacted as part of the administrative affairs audit and investigation authority for criticism, surveillance, and control of the affairs of the local government.

(b) The case holding that Article 76 (2) of the Urban Planning Act, Article 58-2 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 15 of the Local Autonomy Act, which provides that the Municipal Ordinance of the Daegu Metropolitan City, Metropolitan City, or the Urban Planning Committee shall obtain the consent of the City Council before commissioning members of the Urban Planning Committee

(b)Article 15 and Article 96 of the Local Autonomy Act. Section 2 of Article 76 of the Urban Planning Act and Article 58bis 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act;

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Jin31, 1992 (Gong1992, 2575)

Attorney Han-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee

January 20, 1993

The re-resolution on the amendment of the Ordinance of the Urban Planning Committee of Daegu Metropolitan City, a Metropolitan City, which was made by the defendant on August 29, 192, shall not have its effect.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

(1) According to Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 evidence Nos. 1, 2, 2, and 3 of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 6, respectively, the defendant submitted a revised bill to the plaintiff on July 6, 1992, which added the minimum number of members to be replaced at the expiration of the term of office of the commissioned members, the minimum number of members to be replaced at the expiration of the term of office of the members, the limit on the number of public officials among the constituent members of the subcommittee, and the number of the members of the subcommittee to be re-designated or commissioned by the City Mayor from among public officials belonging to the Daegu Metropolitan City and Metropolitan Cities (hereinafter referred to as the "City") and those with knowledge and experience in urban planning at the plenary session of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City on July 6, 192, and paragraph 4 of the same Article.

(2) The Local Autonomy Act provides that the highest decision-making agency that determines the intention of a local government may have a local council as a representative of a local government, and that an executing agency that expresses the intention of a local government as a representative of a local government and supervises its affairs separately allocates the authority of the council and the head of an organization. Meanwhile, the Council may monitor and control the execution of affairs by means of administrative affairs audit, investigation authority, etc., and the head of an organization shall maintain mutual checks and balance by allowing the head of an organization to act as a member of a council in the exercise of voting rights of the Council due to a request for reconsideration of resolution of the Council. In light of the purpose of separation and allocation of authority between the deliberative agency and the executive agency, where the appointment and commission authority of the head of an organization is granted only by municipal ordinance, a provision that imposes checks or restrictions on the appointment authority of the head of an organization may be placed in the appointment authority of the head of the organization under municipal ordinance, or that the appointment and commission authority of the head of a high-level organization may not be deemed as a part of the above municipal ordinance and municipal ordinance.

(3) With respect to whether Article 4(4) of the amended Municipal Ordinance is in violation of Article 76(2) of the Urban Planning Act and Article 58-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 75 of the same Act provides that the Local Urban Planning Committee shall be established in the Do (including Seoul Special Metropolitan City and Metropolitan Cities) to provide advice on urban planning or to deliberate on matters delegated to the Central Committee among the matters under the jurisdiction of the Central Committee. Article 76(2) provides that matters necessary for the establishment and operation of the Local Urban Planning Committee shall be prescribed by Municipal Ordinance of the relevant local government within the extent prescribed by Presidential Decree. Article 58-2(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that the number of members of the Local Urban Planning Committee, the chairperson and the vice-chairperson shall be the number of members of the Local Urban Planning Committee, and Article 5(3) provides that "The number of members of the City/Do Council and the Provincial Council members who are not public officials shall be appointed or commissioned by the Mayor/Do Governor from among persons with knowledge and experience in the City Planning."

(4) Therefore, since the re-resolution bill of this case is unlawful and invalid, 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.