[1] The scope of "agreement administrative agencies" under Article 107 of the Local Autonomy Act, and whether the provisions of the Ordinance which stipulate that the operation of the residents' self-governing center, which refers to various convenience facilities and programs established in the Dong office for local residents, shall be in violation of the Act and subordinate statutes (negative)

[2] Whether the provision of the Ordinance which provides that the head of the Dong may again entrust the operation of the residents' self-governing center to the private sector is in violation of the law (affirmative)

[3] Whether the provision of the Ordinance, which stipulates that prior consultation procedures between the head of the Dong and the individual members of the relevant local council are necessary when commissioning members of the residents' autonomous council, is in violation of the law (affirmative)

[4] In a case where a part of the Ordinance is unlawful, whether the whole effect of the resolution is denied (affirmative)

[1] In accordance with the provisions of Article 107 of the Local Autonomy Act and Articles 41 and 42 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, local governments may establish a consultative body for the purpose of deliberation, if necessary within the scope of their administrative affairs, and if it is necessary to independently perform part of the administrative affairs under their jurisdiction, the consultative body may be established in accordance with the Municipal Ordinance. Such consultative body shall include not only the consultative body with authority to determine and express its intention and decision, but also the deliberative body with authority to make decisions on administrative affairs within the administrative body, and also the decision body with authority to make decisions on administrative affairs within the administrative body. Thus, the Ordinance re-resolutions that the local council may make a resolution on the operation of the residents' self-governing body referring to various cultural, welfare and convenience facilities and programs established in the Dong office so that local residents can use it, separate from whether the approval of the Minister of the Interior under Article 41 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act is possible, it shall not be readily concluded that the establishment of the consultative body constitutes a violation of statutes that excludes the effect of the resolution.

[2] The head of the Dong again entrusts the operation of the residents' self-governing center to the private sector because it constitutes a sub-entrustment of the entrusted affairs. Article 95 (3) of the Local Autonomy Act provides that the entrusted affairs can be entrusted to the private sector by the head of the local government, and Article 95 (3) of the Local Autonomy Act does not provide that the head of the local government can be entrusted to the private sector, but Article 4 of the Regulations on Delegation and Entrustment of Administrative Authority does not provide that the head of the Dong can be entrusted to the private sector, and it is clear in the contents of the provision that the head of the Dong can not be the grounds for re-entrustment or re-entrustment of the entrusted affairs concerning autonomous affairs, and there is no other statute that provides that the head of the Dong may re-entrust or re-entrustment the entrusted affairs of the residents' self-governing center without any legal grounds. Therefore, the Ordinance re-resolution provides that the head

[3] Under the Local Autonomy Act, the executive organs and local councils of local governments are separated into each other to exercise their own authority, but it is allowed to participate in the exercise of the other party's authority within the scope of mutual checks. Thus, in exercising the authority of the executive organs, the local council may intervene passive and ex post facto within the scope of checks, and actively intervene in advance, and it is not allowed to actively intervene in advance, and since the local council is not a member of the local council because the authority such as voting rights, approval rights, and consent rights to criticize, monitor, and check the executive organs exists within the scope of checks, it is not a member of the local council. Thus, in commissioning the members of the local council under the Ordinance re-decided by the local council, it is necessary to pre-consult with the head of the Dong and the individual members of the relevant local council by prescribing that prior consultation procedures with the head of the Gu are necessary, thereby allowing the individual members of

[4] As long as some provisions of the Ordinance violate the law, the re-resolution of the Ordinance shall be denied in its entirety, even if other provisions are not in violation of the law.

[1] Articles 107, 135, and 159(3) of the Local Autonomy Act, Articles 41 and 42 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Autonomy Act / [2] Articles 95(1) and (3), 110, 135, and 159(3), Articles 41 and 42 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Autonomy Act, Article 4 of the Regulations on Delegation and Entrustment of Administrative Authority / [3] Articles 35, 36, 37-2, 92, 94, 96, 110, 135, and 159(3) of the Local Autonomy Act, Articles 41 and 42 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Autonomy Act, Article 4 of the Regulations on Delegation and Entrustment of Administrative Authority / [4] Article 159 of the Local Autonomy Act

[3] [4] Supreme Court Decision 93Do175 delivered on April 26, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 1506) Supreme Court Decision 96Do15 delivered on May 14, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 1893) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 92Do116 delivered on March 9, 1993 / [4] Supreme Court Decision 92Do31 delivered on July 28, 1992 (Gong192, 2575) Supreme Court Decision 93Da144 delivered on May 10, 1994 (Gong194Sang, 1712), Supreme Court Decision 96Do107 delivered on October 25, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 394Ha, 196Ha, 1984).

The head of Dong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City (Law Firm Deputy, Attorneys Lee Byung-ho et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The Dong-gu Incheon Metropolitan Council

October 27, 2000

A second resolution made by the defendant on May 15, 200 on the draft of the Dong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Establishment and Operation of the Residents' Self-Governing Center shall not be effective. The litigation costs shall be borne by

1. The plaintiff requested the defendant to make a resolution on February 10, 200 on the "Dong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Establishment and Operation of the Residents' Self-Governing Center" (hereinafter referred to as the "Ordinance of this case") in order to provide the grounds for the establishment of the residents' self-governing center and the operation of the residents' self-governing committee, but the defendant passed a resolution on the amendment of Article 7 (1) and (2) and Article 17 (2) (hereinafter referred to as the "agreement of this case") among the 25th of the same month. Accordingly, the plaintiff requested the re-resolution on March 18 of the same year by the direction of the Mayor of Incheon Metropolitan City on the ground that the provisions of this case were in violation of the Acts and subordinate statutes, but the defendant provided the same contents as the result of the initial revision on May 15, 200 and Article 7 (1) of the Dispute of this case to ensure that the members of the Dong-gu Residents' Self-governing Center are entrusted with the operation of various cultural and welfare facilities committee.

2. Regarding the violation of the provisions of the dispute of this case, first of all, pursuant to the provisions of Article 107 of the Local Autonomy Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and Articles 41 and 42 of the Decree, local governments may establish advisory organizations for the purpose of deliberation, etc., in addition to the cases where necessary within the scope of their competent affairs, and where it is necessary to independently perform part of their competent affairs, they may establish a collegiate administrative organization as prescribed by municipal ordinances. Such collegiate administrative organizations include not only the collegiate administrative organization with authority to make decisions and make decisions on administration within the administrative body, but also the deliberative organization with authority to make decisions or decisions on the operation of the residents' autonomous council within the administrative body. Thus, the ordinances of this case stipulate that the residents' autonomous council under Article 7 (1) of the Ordinance of this case can make a resolution on the establishment of the residents' autonomous council as such resolution organization, regardless of whether the approval of the Minister of Government Administration and Home Affairs under Article 41 of the Decree is possible.

However, Article 95 (1) of the Act provides that the head of a local government may delegate part of the affairs under his authority to the subordinate administrative agency under the conditions as prescribed by the Ordinance, and it can be deemed that the head of the Dong shall operate the residents' self-governing center under Article 7 (1) of the Ordinance of this case. However, since the head of the Dong again entrusts the operation of the residents' self-governing center to the private sector, it is necessary to be based on separate laws and regulations regarding the entrustment of affairs. Article 95 (3) of the Act provides that the entrustment of affairs to the private sector can be made by the head of the local government, but Article 4 of the Regulations on Delegation and Entrustment of Administrative Authority does not provide that the head of the Dong may be entrusted to the private sector, and it is clear that Article 7 (2) of the Ordinance of this case provides that the head of the Dong may not be entrusted to the private sector, which is in violation of the provisions of the Act and subordinate statutes.

In addition, the executive organs and local councils of local governments under the Act are separated from each other to exercise their own authority, but they are allowed to participate in the exercise of the other party's authority within the scope of mutual checks. Thus, in the exercise of the personnel rights belonging to the executive organs, the local council may intervene passive and ex post facto within the scope of checks, and actively intervene in advance, and the local council does not have the authority such as voting rights, approval rights, and consent rights to criticize, monitor, and check the executive organs, but it does not belong to the local council which is a decision-making body under the Act. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Do175, Apr. 26, 1994; 96Do15, May 14, 1996). Article 17 (2) of the Ordinance of this case provides that when the head of the Gu commissions members of the local council, the head of the Dong and the local council of individuals and individuals of the relevant Gu shall be allowed to participate in the exercise of the authority of the head of the Gu.

Therefore, Articles 7(2) and 17(2) of the dispute provisions of this case are deemed to be in violation of the relevant laws and regulations. Since each provision is contrary to the relevant laws and regulations, the re-resolution of the Ordinance of this case, even if other provisions are not in violation of the Acts and subordinate statutes, the validity of the re-resolution of the Ordinance of this case is all denied (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da31 delivered on July 18, 192). Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim seeking the exclusion of the validity of re-resolution of the Ordinance of this case is ultimately justified.

3. Therefore, this case's claim is accepted and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Shin Shin-chul (Presiding Justice)