[1] In Article 4(3) through (7) of the Local Autonomy Act, where the Minister of Public Administration and Security and his/her affiliated committees do not specifically stipulate the substantive criteria for determination or consideration of the determination or determination concerning the jurisdiction of reclaimed land under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Public Administration and Security, whether it violates the nature of the local autonomy system guaranteed under the Constitution,

[2] Legislative intent of Article 4 (4) of the Local Autonomy Act that the reclamation license agency or the head of the relevant local government who has interests in the determination of attribution of reclaimed land shall apply for the determination of attribution to the Minister of Public Administration and Security before the completion inspection, and whether it is illegal to cancel the determination of attribution to the Minister of Public Administration and Security (negative)

[3] Whether the "head of the relevant local government" under Article 4 (4) of the Local Autonomy Act includes the "head of the relevant local government" who is stipulated as the applicant for the decision to revert reclaimed land to the jurisdiction (affirmative)

[4] Whether the Minister of Public Administration and Security and its affiliated commission have a wide discretion in establishing a local government to which reclaimed land belongs (affirmative), and the limit of such discretion

[1] Article 4 of the Local Autonomy Act, amended by Act No. 9577 of Apr. 1, 2009, provides that the jurisdiction of a local government shall be determined by the relevant local government only with the determination of the State, and Article 4 (1) of the Local Autonomy Act, which is amended by Act No. 9577 of Apr. 1, 2009, provides that, in principle, the jurisdiction of a local government shall be determined by statutes. However, in exceptional cases of reclaimed land of public waters, Article 4 (3) exceptionally delegates the authority of the Minister of Public Administration and Security to decide the jurisdiction carefully through a certain hearing procedure to resolve problems arising from the determination of a local government based on maritime boundary base through the adjudication procedure of the Constitutional Court on jurisdiction disputes. In determining a local government having jurisdiction over reclaimed land of public waters, the State shall not be deemed to have violated the principle of efficient and balanced utilization and development of land (Articles 120 (2) and 122 of the Constitution), balanced development between regions (Article 123 (2) of the Constitution).

[2] Under Article 4(4) of the Local Autonomy Act, Article 45 of the Public Waters Management and Reclamation Act, Article 2 subparag. 29, Article 77, and Article 87 of the Spatial Data Construction and Management Act, Article 63 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Construction, Management, etc. of Spatial Data, Article 81(1)2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Construction, Management, etc. of Spatial Data, and Article 81(1)2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Construction, Management, etc. of Spatial Data, and Article 4(4) of the Local Autonomy Act, even if a landowner or reclamation licensee applied for new registration of land at his/her discretion to the head of a specific local government before the completion inspection, so that the head of the relevant local government or the head of the relevant local government may request the Minister of Public Administration and Security to decide the jurisdiction of reclaimed land at a prompt and appropriate time, and thus, the Minister of Public Administration and Security’s decision on the completion inspection of reclamation land should not be deemed to have jurisdiction over the Local Autonomy Act.

[3] Before amendment of Article 4 of the Local Autonomy Act on April 1, 2009, the jurisdiction of the reclaimed land of public waters was mainly determined through the adjudication procedure on competence between basic local governments. In order to solve the problems therefrom, Article 4 of the Local Autonomy Act was amended on April 1, 2009 to determine the jurisdiction of reclaimed land of the Minister of Public Administration and Security was newly established. In Korea, local governments are divided into two types, and a basic local government such as Si/Gun/Gu is established within a metropolitan government such as the Special Metropolitan City, Metropolitan City, Metropolitan City, Special Self-Governing City, Do, Do, and Special Self-Governing Province (Articles 2(1) and 3(2) of the Local Autonomy Act). In light of the fact that a certain reclaimed land is determined to be included in the jurisdiction of a basic local government, it should be deemed as included in the jurisdiction of the metropolitan local government to which the basic local government belongs at the same time in Article 4(4) of the Local Autonomy Act includes a "head of the relevant local government having jurisdiction over reclaimed land in question."

[4] In light of the legislative intent of amending Article 4 of the Local Autonomy Act by Act No. 9577 of Apr. 1, 2009, and establishing a new system for determining a local government to which reclaimed land belongs by the Minister of Public Administration and Security, the Minister of Public Administration and Security and the competent commission have the discretion to form a wide range when determining the local government to which reclaimed land belongs: Provided, That the discretion to form such discretion is not unlimited, but it is limited to comparison and balancing by comprehensively taking into account all relevant benefits into account. Where the Minister of Public Administration and Security and the competent commission did not withhold any such benefit balancing or omitted any matters to be included in those subject to consideration of profit balancing, but lack legitimacy and objectivity, the competent authority is deemed to be a deviation and abuse of discretionary power.

In light of the purport of the above amendment of the Local Autonomy Act, the Minister of Public Administration and Security and its affiliated committees should consider the following matters as a general rule when determining a local government to which reclaimed land belongs. In particular, in cases of a reclamation project whose overall reclamation project plan is established as a single plan and whose project contents or district is implemented in a phased and net manner under the Gu’s Gu, even in cases where it is inevitable to first determine the ownership of part of reclaimed land not to be the whole area due to the need for administrative support on the completed portion of reclamation but to give priority to the determination of ownership of the area where reclamation is completed, the determination of jurisdiction over such part of reclaimed land may have considerable impact on the determination of jurisdiction over the remaining area of reclamation. Therefore, even in cases where a determination of ownership is made only for certain areas, the determination of ownership of the whole area of reclaimed land should be made by comprehensively taking into account the relevant reclamation project implementation plan, the land use plan and the land use plan of the whole area of the reclaimed land to which the entire area of the reclaimed land belongs, as the overall area of the local government’s jurisdiction is not desirable to exclude or exclude the relevant jurisdiction.

(1) The competent authority shall determine the relevant area and make efficient use of new land available in consideration of the detailed land use plan of each area within reclaimed land and organic use relationship with neighboring areas, etc.

(2) A reasonable boundary shall be established based on the situation in which reclaimed land is used, in consideration of the shape of connection between reclaimed land and another local government's jurisdiction, connection and distance between reclaimed land and another local government's jurisdiction, and the location of natural features, such as roads, rivers, canals, etc., which can be easily recognized as boundary within the jurisdiction of reclaimed land.

(3) The efficiency of administration shall not be significantly impaired considering various factors, such as the connection and distance between reclaimed land and neighboring local governments, the installation and management of infrastructure, such as roads, ports, electricity, waterworks, telecommunications, etc., the prompt provision of administrative services, and the ability to cope with emergencies.

(4) In consideration of the transportation relationship between reclaimed land and neighboring local governments, accessibility from outside, etc., a local government’s inclusion in the jurisdiction of the residents of reclaimed land in the residential and living convenience shall be considered.

(5) Since neighboring local governments and residents lose adjacent public waters due to the execution of reclamation works, they shall take into account the historical and practical interests in marine accessibility of local governments that lose such public waters, and the basis of living and economic benefits of residents.

[1] Articles 120(2), 122, and 123(2) of the Constitution / [2] Article 4(1), (3), and (4) of the Local Autonomy Act; Article 45 of the Public Waters Management and Reclamation Act; Article 2 subparag. 29, Articles 7, and 87 of the Spatial Data Construction and Management Act; Article 63 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Establishment, Management, etc. of Spatial Data; Article 81(1)2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Spatial Data Construction and Management Act / [3] Articles 2(1), 3(2), and 4(3) and (4) of the Local Autonomy Act / [4] Article 4(1) and (3) of the Local Autonomy Act; Article 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act

[1] [4] Supreme Court Decision 2016Hun-Ga5025 Decided December 24, 2020 / [3] Constitutional Court en banc Decision 2000Hun-Ma2 Decided September 23, 2004 (Hun-Ga97, 969) / [4] Supreme Court Decision 2010Hun-Ga73 Decided November 14, 2013 (Gong2013Ha, 222)

Chungcheongnam-do Governor and two others (Law Firm LLC et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Minister of Public Administration and Security (Attorney Seo-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Pyeongtaek-si et al. (Law Firm Dakel et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

December 10, 2020

All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed. The costs of lawsuit including the part arising from supplementary participation are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The Defendant’s decision on May 4, 2015 on the jurisdiction of the local government with respect to the reclaimed land in Pyeongtaek-gu and Seogjin-do (number 1 omitted), (number 2 omitted), (number 3 omitted), (number 4 omitted), (number 5 omitted), (number 679,589.8 square meters in total, which belongs to the local government and the non-registered reclaimed land shall be revoked.

The background and summary of the decision of this case

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged by comprehensively considering the following facts: Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1-4, Eul evidence 2-1-3, and the whole purport of the pleadings.

A. The chief of Pyeongtaek-si regional maritime affairs and fisheries office (the chief of Pyeongtaek-si regional maritime affairs and fisheries office amended the Government Organization Act, whose organization and name were changed several times, but the chief of Pyeongtaek-si maritime affairs and fisheries office (the chief of Pyeongtaek-si maritime affairs and fisheries office) performed the construction of Pyeongtaek-si ports and reclaimed land at the maritime public waters in front of the new Sin-si, Pyeongtaek-si, Pyeongtaek-si, from December 12, 2003 to October 1, 2009 in order to create the road, bank, and miscellaneous land. Accordingly, reclaimed land (hereinafter “instant reclaimed land”) was created as indicated in the attached Form.

B. The Constitutional Court en banc Order 200Hun-Ma2, Sept. 23, 2004, en banc Order 2000Hun-Ma2, Sept. 23, 2004, on the adjudication on competence disputes between Jin-si, Jin-si (hereinafter “Jin-si”) and the Defendant’s supplementary taxi (hereinafter “Yin-si”), the maritime boundary line on the topographical map published by the National Geographical Institute is a maritime boundary under the French Act, and the reclaimed land created by reclaiming public waters in the jurisdiction of a specific local government should be automatically reverted to the jurisdiction of the local government having jurisdiction over such public waters. Accordingly, the Constitutional Court decided that the jurisdiction over reclaimed land (number 7 omitted at the time of Jin-si), which was located at the time of Jin-si (number 32,834.8 square meters at the time of Jin-si), was replaced by the Enforcement Decree of the Harbor Act [Attachment 1] as prescribed by Presidential Decree No. 1824, Dec. 30, 2004.

C. The next year, as shown in the separate sheet, completed the cadastral registration on the rest of the reclaimed land except for the sequence 9 and 0 (2).

D. Accordingly, from February 9, 2010 to August 24, 2010, the Defendant’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s assistant taxi head (hereinafter “ Pyeongtaek-si head”) applied for the determination of the local government to which the Defendant belongs as Pyeongtaek-si based on Article 4(4) of the Local Autonomy Act (wholly amended by Act No. 17893, Jan. 12, 2021; hereinafter the same) to the Defendant (the organization and name of the organization was changed several times by amendment of the Government Organization Act, but the said act is expressed by the Minister of Public Administration and Security in accordance with the current statutes). On April 2, 2012, the head of Pyeongtaek-si regional maritime affairs and fisheries office requested the Defendant to determine the local government to which the reclaimed land belongs as Pyeongtaek-si.

마. 피고 소속 지방자치단체 중앙분쟁조정위원회(이하 ‘위원회’라고 한다)는 2015. 4. 13. 아래 사정들을 종합하여 별지 순번 ⑤~⑪ 기재 매립지 중 헌법재판소 2004. 9. 23. 선고 2000헌라2 전원재판부 결정 으로 당진시에 관할권한이 있다고 결정된 별지 순번 ① 제방의 안쪽에 위치한 매립지 총 282,760.7㎡(당진시 (지번 8 생략), (지번 9 생략), (지번 10 생략), (지번 11 생략), (지번 12 생략), 별지 도면 중 녹색 원 안에 위치한 부분)는 충청남도 당진시의 관할구역으로 정하고, 나머지 매립지 총 679,589.8㎡(당진시 (지번 1 생략), (지번 2 생략), (지번 3 생략), (지번 4 생략), (지번 5 생략), (지번 6 생략) 및 미등록 매립지, 별지 도면 중 빨간색 원 안에 위치한 부분)는 경기도 평택시의 관할구역으로 정하는 의결을 하였다.

① The criteria for determining the jurisdiction of reclaimed land presented by the Constitutional Court en banc Decision 2000Hun-Ma2, Sept. 23, 2004, namely, “public waters reclaimed land must automatically belong to the jurisdiction of a specific local government according to the maritime boundaries on topographical maps” are not applicable after the amendment of Article 4 of the Local Autonomy Act on April 1, 2009.

(2) If a local government determines a reclaimed land based on the maritime boundary line on the topographical map, the harbor and its hinterland complex will be divided into Pyeongtaek-si, Jin-si, and Asan-si, but this is not a decision taking into account the geographical relation, and thus the efficiency of national land utilization and management will be lowered.

③ In full view of the legislative intent of the Constitutional Court en banc Order 2000Hun-Ma2, Sept. 23, 2004 and Article 4 of the Local Autonomy Act amended on April 1, 2009, comprehensively taking into account the legislative intent of the Local Autonomy Act, the scope of the bank’s upper part on the boundary of the bank that was determined by the Constitutional Court to be under its jurisdiction at the time of Jin-si should be considered as well as the geographical relation and the clarity of the competent local government’s reversion of the upper part to the jurisdiction of Pyeongtaek-si. In addition, it is reasonable for the efficient use of reclaimed land and surrounding land.

바. 피고는 2015. 5. 4. 위원회의 의결과 같은 내용으로 별지 순번 ⑤~⑪ 매립지가 속할 지방자치단체를 정하는 결정을 하고(이하 ‘이 사건 결정’이라고 한다) 원고들과 평택시장, 평택지방해양수산청장, 피고 보조참가인 경기도지사에게 통보하였다.

G. On May 18, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed the instant lawsuit seeking revocation of the part within the jurisdiction of Pyeongtaek-si, as stated in the instant decision’s purport of claim.

2. As to the assertion that Article 4 of the Local Autonomy Act is unconstitutional

A. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

If Article 4(3) through (7) of the Local Autonomy Act excludes the criteria for the maritime boundaries of this case, it is possible for the defendant to arbitrarily determine the jurisdiction of the local government without any basis. Thus, the essence of the local autonomy system guaranteed by the Constitution is infringed, and the Constitutional Court's competence is infringed, and the principle of clarity and the principle of legal reservation is also violated. The decision of this case is based on the law

B. Determination

(1) Article 117(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea provides that local governments shall handle affairs concerning the welfare of residents and manage property, and establish regulations concerning autonomy within the scope of statutes (Article 117(1)). While the types of local governments generally guarantee autonomous administration by local governments, the types of local governments shall be prescribed by Act (Article 117(2)), and matters concerning the organization and operation of local governments shall be prescribed by Act (Article 118(2)). (See Constitutional Court en banc Decision 2015Hun-Ma3, Jul. 16, 2020).

(2) Article 4(1) of the Local Autonomy Act amended by Act No. 9577 of Apr. 1, 2009 provides that "the name and zone of a local government shall be identical to that of the previous local government, the alteration of the name and zone, or the abolition, establishment, division, or consolidation of a local government shall be determined by Act: Provided, That the alteration of boundaries and the alteration of the name of a Chinese government shall be determined by Presidential Decree, although Article 4(3)1 of the Local Autonomy Act provides that "Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a local government to which a reclaimed land under the Public Waters Management and Reclamation Act (hereinafter referred to as "reclaimed land") belongs shall be determined by the Minister of the Interior and Safety pursuant to the provisions of paragraphs (4) through (7)." Article 4(4) through (7) provides that "The Minister of the Interior and Safety and its affiliated committees shall comply with the procedures for the resolution and decision on the reversion of reclaimed land's jurisdiction, and the substantive standards and factors of the resolution and decision shall not be specifically prescribed.

(3) According to Article 67 of the Spatial Data Establishment and Management Act and Article 58 subparag. 17, 18, and 19 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, public waters on land shall be determined by the competent local government on the basis of the land, which is the land’s property right. However, since the bottom floor of public waters on sea is not considered as “land,” which is the object of real right, the reclamation works are not considered as “land.” Since land newly created does not belong to any local government, it constitutes a new case where there is no existing land upon construction of reclaimed land. As such, the State’s new land newly created is determined in the form of law or in the form of a decision of the Minister of Public Administration and Security pursuant to the main sentence of Article 4(1) of the Local Autonomy Act, and no local government shall belong to any local government until it reaches such determination. Accordingly, the determination of the use of public waters and its nature may not be applied differently from the determination of the Constitutional Court en banc Decision 201, supra.

(4) ① The jurisdiction of a local government is not the core area of the local autonomy system, but the scope of the legislative formation authority; ② the local government is established only with the determination of the State in the case of a public waters reclaimed at sea; ③ Article 4(1) of the amended Local Autonomy Act stipulates, in principle, the jurisdiction of a local government is determined by the law; but exceptionally, Article 4(3) delegates to the Minister of Public Administration and Security with the authority to make a decision on the jurisdiction carefully through a certain procedure for hearing the opinion of the Constitutional Court in order to solve problems arising from the determination of the local government based on the maritime boundary line; ④ the State’s decision on the reclamation of public waters at sea is not in line with the relevant local government or residents’ interests in the efficient and balanced utilization, development and preservation of the national land (Articles 120(2) and 122 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea); and ③ The standards for determination of the above substantive elements or standards for determination of the municipal government’s determination cannot be considered as violating the principle of clarity and technical certainty from the Constitutional Court.

(5) In the en banc Order 2015Hun-Ma3 Decided July 16, 2020 on the adjudication on competence dispute brought against the defendant, Pyeongtaek-si, and the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, the Constitutional Court held that the jurisdiction of the reclaimed land of public waters after the enforcement of Article 4 of the amended Local Autonomy Act on April 1, 2009 does not belong to the adjudication on competence dispute under the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court. Accordingly, Article 4 of the amended Local Autonomy Act cannot be deemed to infringe on the Constitutional Court’s competence dispute.

(6) Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion that Article 4 of the Local Autonomy Act is unconstitutional is without merit.

3. As to the assertion that the application for the determination on jurisdiction of the head of Pyeongtaek-si is unlawful

A. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

(1) Of the attached sequence Nos. 5 to which the head of Pyeongtaek-si applied for a decision on attribution of jurisdiction to the Defendant over several occasions, the application for a decision on attribution of jurisdiction was filed after completion inspection on reclaimed land from 2000 to 2000. Thus, the application for the part is unlawful since the period of application set forth in Article 4(4) of the Local Autonomy Act was over, and thus, the part on reclaimed land from 5

(2) Article 4(4) of the Local Autonomy Act provides that “the head of a relevant local government” shall be deemed to mean only the “Mayor/Do Governor”. The head of Pyeongtaek-si, the head of a basic local government, is not included therein, and does not have the right to file an application for the determination on the jurisdiction of reclaimed land. Of the instant decision made upon the application of the head of Pyeongtaek-si, the attached table Nos. (5)

B. Determination as to the purpose of application and argument

(1) Article 4(4) of the Local Autonomy Act provides that “In the case of paragraph (3) 1, the reclamation license agency or the head of a related local government under Article 28 of the Public Waters Act shall apply for the determination of the local government to which the relevant area belongs to the Minister of the Interior and Safety before completion inspection pursuant to Article 45 of the Public Waters Act.” According to Article 45 of the Public Waters Act, upon completion of reclamation works, the reclamation licensee shall apply for completion inspection to the reclamation license agency by determining the location and land category of reclaimed land (Article 67 of the Spatial Data Management Act), as prescribed by Presidential Decree, and the reclamation license agency upon receipt of an application for completion inspection shall issue a completion inspection certificate prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries and publicly announce the fact that the construction was implemented as approved as an implementation plan after completion inspection as prescribed by Presidential Decree. In this case, the landowner or reclamation licensee shall apply for new registration of land within 60 days from the date of completion inspection with a copy of the completion inspection certificate attached to the competent cadastral authority (Article 2 subparag. 29, Articles 7, 87, and 63 of the Enforcement Decree)

(2) As seen earlier, it is necessary for the State to determine the competent local government in the form of law pursuant to the main sentence of Article 4(1) of the Local Autonomy Act or in the form of decision of the Minister of Public Administration and Security pursuant to Article 4(3) of the Local Autonomy Act as land newly created by the execution of reclamation work on the maritime public waters. Since it does not belong to any local government until that day, there is no “competent authority” to manage the cadastral record by newly registering land (Article 2 subparag. 18 of the Spatial Data Management Act). Therefore, even if the State applied for new registration of land to the head of a specific local government and completed registration of the cadastral record at its discretion, even if the landowner or reclamation licensee applied for a new registration of land to the head of

(3) In full view of such relevant provisions and legal principles, Article 4(4) of the Local Autonomy Act requires the Minister of Public Administration and Security to make a decision on the attribution of reclaimed land to the Minister of Public Administration and Security as soon as possible before the completion inspection by allowing the reclamation license agency or the head of a related local government to apply for the determination on the attribution of reclaimed land to the Minister of Public Administration and Security. Through this, the legislative purpose of preventing situations in which landowners or reclamation contractors voluntarily apply for new registration of land to the head of a specific local government before the determination on the attribution of reclaimed land to the Minister of Public Administration and Security, and registration of land invalidation is made. In the case of reclaimed land of maritime public waters, unless the competent local government is prescribed by law in the form of law pursuant to the main sentence of Article 4(1) of the Local Autonomy Act, the determination on the jurisdiction of the Minister of Public Administration and Security pursuant to Article 4(3) of the Local Autonomy Act cannot be deemed to have any impact on the authority and duty of the Minister of Public Administration and Security to make a decision on the attribution of the relevant reclaimed land.

(4) Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ assertion that the instant decision was unlawful by having the application period set by the Pyeongtaek-si head is without merit.

C. Determination on the lack of application authority

(1) As seen earlier, prior to the amendment of Article 4 of the Local Autonomy Act on April 1, 2009, the jurisdiction of the reclaimed land of public waters was mainly determined by the adjudication procedure on competence disputes between basic local governments (see Constitutional Court en banc Decision 2000Hun-Ma2, Sept. 23, 2004). The amendment of Article 4 of the Local Autonomy Act on April 1, 2009 and the procedure for the determination of the jurisdiction of reclaimed land of the Minister of Public Administration and Security was newly established to resolve the problems arising therefrom; and (2) in Korea, local governments are divided into two different types, and a basic local government such as the Special Metropolitan City, Metropolitan City, Special Self-Governing City, Do, Do, and Special Self-Governing Province (hereinafter “City/Do”) and a local government within the same metropolitan area as a Si/Gun/Gu (see Articles 2(1) and 3(2) of the Local Autonomy Act, and at the same time, the head of the neighboring local government and the head of the neighboring local government should be deemed to vest reclaimed land within its jurisdiction.

(2) Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ assertion to the effect that the instant decision was unlawful as the head of Pyeongtaek-si did not have the right to apply for the determination on attribution of reclaimed land.

4. Regarding the procedural defect argument

A. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

(1) At the time of deliberation and resolution by the Committee for the instant decision, it violated Article 4(7) of the Local Autonomy Act by depriving the public officials belonging to Chungcheongnam-do, who are the relevant local governments, of the opportunity to state their opinions.

(2) The Defendant notified the instant decision by electronic document without the prior consent of the Plaintiffs, and failed to notify the method of filing a dissatisfaction, thereby violating Articles 24 and 26 of the Administrative Procedures Act. Therefore, the instant decision should be revoked as it is unlawful due to such procedural defect.

B. Determination

(1) In a case where an administrative agency’s procedural justification is lost due to a violation of the procedural provisions of a relevant statute in the disposition procedure, the pertinent disposition shall be unlawful and revoked in principle. Provided, That where there are extenuating circumstances where it cannot be deemed that a substantial obstacle to the disposition counterpart or related person’s right of statement or defense, the procedural justification of the disposition procedure cannot be deemed to have been lost due to the violation of procedural provisions, and such disposition shall not be revoked (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Du3339, Mar. 13, 2018

(2) According to Article 4 of the Local Autonomy Act, the Minister of Public Administration and Security shall, without delay, make an application for determination on the jurisdiction of reclaimed land pursuant to paragraph (4) and publicly notify such fact through Official Gazette or Internet, etc. for at least 20 days, and Articles 42, 44, and 45 of the Administrative Procedures Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the method of notification, submission of opinions, etc., and the Minister of Public Administration and Security shall determine a local government to which reclaimed land will belong according to the Committee’s deliberation and resolution after the expiration of the period pursuant to paragraph (5), notify the licensing authority or competent cadastral authority, the heads of relevant local governments, etc. of the results thereof, and publicly notify the result thereof (Paragraph 6), and if deemed necessary in the process of deliberation, the Chairperson of the Committee may request the relevant central administrative agency or local government’s public officials or relevant experts to attend a meeting to hear their opinions, or to present their opinions, and in such cases, the head of relevant local government shall give

In light of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 2-2, Eul evidence 2-3, Eul evidence 4-1, 2, Eul evidence 5-1, 5-2, Eul evidence 6-1, 2, and Eul evidence 9-1, 2, and Eul evidence 9-2, the plaintiff Chungcheongnam-nam Do governor submitted a written opinion to the defendant on April 1, 2010. The defendant issued an application to change the area of the reclaimed land on December 8, 2010 and the defendant issued an application to change the contents of the reclaimed land's area within 20 days, and the committee submitted a written opinion on December 28, 2010; the committee submitted a written opinion from January 1, 2014 to April 15, 2014 to the extent that the person can present an opinion thereon; and the committee submitted a written opinion on December 28, 2010.

According to the above facts, an interested party’s opportunity to present opinions was granted through public announcement and submission of opinions in the process of deliberation and resolution by the Committee for the instant decision, and accordingly, the Plaintiff Chungcheongnam-do submitted written opinions in fact several times. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the Committee violated Article 4(7) of the Local Autonomy Act or procedural justification was lost for the Committee’s deliberation and resolution, solely on the ground that the Committee did not give a public official of Chungcheongnam-do an opportunity to present opinions orally at the final deliberation and resolution stage.

(3) The purpose of Article 1 of the Administrative Procedures Act is to ensure fairness, transparency, and reliability of administration by providing for common matters regarding administrative procedures and to protect the rights and interests of citizens by seeking citizens’ participation (Article 1). Article 24(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act provides that when an administrative agency takes a disposition, it shall be done in writing, except where there is a special provision in other Acts and subordinate statutes, i.e., where it is necessary to process it promptly or where a matter is insignificant, and where it is conducted in electronic form, the consent of the parties, etc. should be required. This is to ensure clarity of the disposition and to prevent disputes over the existence of disposition, thereby protecting the rights and interests of the party to the disposition. Article 26 of the Administrative Procedures Act provides that, when an administrative agency takes a disposition, the parties may file an administrative appeal, file an administrative litigation, file procedures, request period, and other necessary matters shall be notified to the parties in relation to the disposition, and thus, the said administrative disposition is to protect the rights and interests of the other party to the disposition by notifying the method of appeal.

The legislative purpose and purpose of Articles 24(1) and 26 of the Administrative Procedures Act are ① The Plaintiffs are the heads of relevant local governments, not “general citizens,” but “heads of relevant local governments,” respectively. ② The Plaintiffs merely failed to obtain a written decision in the paper form and did not substantially impede the decision or the exercise of the right to defense, due to the lack of substantial details of the decision in this case upon receiving a written decision in the form of an electronic document, and ③ the Plaintiffs followed the filing period of the suit in this case to the Supreme Court within 15 days after being notified of the decision in this case. In full view of the above, even if the Defendant notified the decision in this case in electronic form without prior consent of the Plaintiffs or did not notify the method of appeal, it is difficult to view the procedural defect to the extent that the decision in this case should be revoked.

(4) Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion that there are procedural defects to the extent that the decision of this case should be revoked is without merit.

5. As to the assertion of substantive defects

A. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

(1) According to the Constitutional Court en banc Order 200Hun-Ma2, Sept. 23, 2004, the reclaimed land of this case was confirmed to the jurisdiction of the Jin-si City. The decision of this case is unlawful since it is contrary to the binding force of the above Constitutional Court decision.

(2) The Act on the Establishment, etc. of the Si in the urban and rural complex form, which was enacted by Act No. 10993, August 4, 2011 (hereinafter “The Act on the Establishment, etc.”) stipulates that the jurisdiction of the Si in the Si in the urban and rural complex form, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do (hereinafter “Si in the Si of the Si of the Si of the Si of the Si of the Si of the Si of the Si of the Gu of the Si of the Gu of the Gu of the Gu of the Gu of the Gu of the Gu of the Gu of the Gu of the Gu of the Gu of the Gu of the Gu of the Gu of the Si of the Gu of the

(3) The instant decision had already been registered in the inspection of completion of the instant reclaimed land and in the cadastral record for about five years and five months before the instant decision was made after the filing of the application by Pyeongtaek-si, and there was no objection by the Defendant or any other State agency. The instant decision should be deemed unlawful since it contradicts the principle of trust protection, since it undermines the trust between the time when it exercised jurisdiction over the instant reclaimed land and that of Chungcheongnam-do for several years.

(4) When the Defendant exercises its discretionary power over the determination on the jurisdiction of reclaimed land, the relevant local governments and their residents’ interests should be appropriately balanced. However, the instant determination is unlawful on the grounds that (i) the consideration of important elements is defective, omitted, or lack of legitimacy and objectivity in the balancing of interests among the factors to be considered, and thus, (ii) the determination is deemed unlawful.

(1) Comprehensive plans for the development of the west coast areas under the Special Act on the Development of the East and West Coast Areas and Inland Areas, and third national basic harbor plans, etc. have been formulated under the jurisdiction of the Pacific cities.

(2) One local government shall exercise the jurisdiction, since the total book is to be operated as a single industrial complex.

③ Attached Nos. 1 and the reclaimed land surrounding the bank was already determined under the jurisdiction of the Siljin-si, and the reclaimed land of this case is planned to be constructed as a connecting road with the Siljin-si. A guidance sign is installed at the main tower of the Seogyeong-si, which is the vicinity of the maritime boundary line.

(4) An enterprise belonging to the Si/Gun/Gu having jurisdiction over gas, electricity, industrial water, etc. shall supply gas, electricity, industrial water, etc. through Western guard.

⑤ The companies that moved into the reclaimed land of this case are bound to have jurisdiction over the Sil Jin-si where the regulation of the Seoul Metropolitan Area does not extend.

(6) The location of the reclaimed land of this case has been historically in charge of licensing fishery business, etc., and the validity of the customary law on the maritime boundary was confirmed by the Constitutional Court’s decision. As long as the reclaimed land of this case loses its jurisdiction over the companies detained at the Jinjin market, it would incur enormous damages from the aspect

B. Determination as to the remainder of the argument except for the allegation of error in profit balancing

(1) According to the amendment of Article 4 of the Local Autonomy Act on April 1, 2009, a procedure for determining the jurisdiction of reclaimed land was newly established, and the customary law with respect to the attribution of reclaimed land’s jurisdiction is no longer recognized (see Constitutional Court en banc Order 2015Hun-Ma3, Jul. 16, 2020). Therefore, the binding force of the Constitutional Court en banc Order 2000Hun-Ma2, Sept. 23, 2004, ought to be deemed to extend only to the bank set forth in attached Form 1, which confirms that the jurisdiction was under its jurisdiction at the time of exhaustion.

(2) As seen earlier, after the amendment of Article 4 of the Local Autonomy Act on April 1, 2009, the State needs to determine the competent local government in the form of law or in the form of decision of the Minister of Public Administration and Security pursuant to the main sentence of Article 4(1) of the Local Autonomy Act with respect to the reclaimed land of maritime public waters. Since the State does not belong to any local government until that time, even if the landowner or the reclamation licensee applied for a new registration of land to the head of a specific local government at his own discretion and completed the registration of the official cadastral record, it shall be null and void as a disposition by an unauthorized administrative agency. The former Act on the Establishment and Management of Facilities, enacted on August 4, 201, means that the jurisdiction of Jinjin-gun, as it is the jurisdiction of the Siljin-gun, is the jurisdiction of the Siljin-si, and cannot be deemed as having been incorporated into the jurisdiction of the Siljin-si.

(3) Since the amendment of Article 4 of the Local Autonomy Act on April 1, 2009, the procedure for determining the jurisdiction of reclaimed land was newly established, the Plaintiffs, as the “head of the relevant local government,” should have known that the procedures for determining the jurisdiction of reclaimed land of this case should be followed. Even if they were not aware, gross negligence should be deemed to exist even if they were not known. The decision of this case was made by the competent local government, which newly registered the land of reclaimed land of this case from [Attachment No. 5] to (k) before the competent local government was established, and thus, the Plaintiffs’ trust on the premise that this is valid is not worth protecting.

(4) Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion that the instant decision goes against the binding force of the Constitutional Court Decision 2000Hun-Ma2, the principle of good faith, and the principle of trust protection is without merit.

C. Determination as to the defective assertion of profit balancing

(1) In light of the legislative intent of amending Article 4 of the Local Autonomy Act by Act No. 9577 of Apr. 1, 2009, and establishing a new system to determine a local government to which reclaimed land belongs by the Minister of Public Administration and Security, the Minister of Public Administration and Security and its affiliated committees should have the discretion of formation of wide range when determining the local government to which reclaimed land belongs. However, the discretion of formation is not unlimited but limited by comprehensively considering all relevant interests. The Minister of Public Administration and Security and its affiliated committees are deemed unlawful in cases where the Minister of Public Administration and Security and its affiliated committees did not make any such profit balancing at all, or where they omitted any matters to be included in the objects to be considered in the profit balancing, or where there is lack of legitimacy and objectivity even if the profit balancing was conducted, the competent decision should be deemed to be unlawful.

In light of the purport of the above amendment of the Local Autonomy Act, the Minister of Public Administration and Security and its affiliated committees should consider the following matters as a general rule when determining a local government to which reclaimed land belongs. In particular, in cases of a reclamation project whose overall reclamation project plan is established with a single plan and whose project contents or district is carried out in a phased and orderly manner, even in cases where the determination of jurisdiction over certain areas of reclamation is inevitable due to the need for administrative support on the completed portion of reclamation, the determination of jurisdiction over the relevant part may have considerable impact on the determination of jurisdiction over the remaining areas of reclamation. Therefore, even in cases where a determination of jurisdiction is made only for certain areas, the determination of jurisdiction over the relevant reclamation project shall have significant impact on the determination of jurisdiction over the area where reclamation is completed, taking into account the overall implementation plan of the reclamation project in question, the land use plan and land use plan of the reclaimed land in question, and the plan for the creation and use of a harbor. If the determination of jurisdiction is partially carried out in light of the overall jurisdiction of the Gu, there is a risk that the overall implementation plan of the reclamation project in question may not be reflected.

(1) The competent authority shall determine the relevant area and make efficient use of new land available in consideration of the detailed land use plan of each area within reclaimed land and organic use relationship with neighboring areas, etc.

(2) A reasonable boundary shall be established based on the situation in which reclaimed land is used, in consideration of the shape of connection between reclaimed land and another local government's jurisdiction, connection and distance between reclaimed land and another local government's jurisdiction, and the location of natural features, such as roads, rivers, canals, etc., which can be easily recognized as boundary within the jurisdiction of reclaimed land.

(3) The efficiency of administration shall not be significantly impaired considering various factors, such as the connection and distance between reclaimed land and neighboring local governments, the installation and management of infrastructure, such as roads, ports, electricity, waterworks, telecommunications, etc., the prompt provision of administrative services, and the ability to cope with emergencies.

(4) In consideration of the transportation relationship between reclaimed land and neighboring local governments, accessibility from outside, etc., a local government’s inclusion in the jurisdiction of the residents of reclaimed land in the residential and living convenience shall be considered.

(5) Since a neighboring local government and residents lose adjacent public waters due to the execution of reclamation works, the historical and practical interests of local governments that lose such public waters as a result thereof, and the basis of living and economic interests of their residents, shall be considered.

(2) Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the following legal principles: (a) evidence Nos. 1 and 2; (b) evidence Nos. 1 and 5-3; (c) evidence Nos. 1 and 1-4; (d) evidence Nos. 4-1, 2, and 5-1, 5-2; (e) evidence Nos. 7-1, 2, 8-1, 2, 9-1, 10-1, 11-2, Eul evidence Nos. 13-1, 13-2, 2, 2- Eul evidence Nos. 13-1, 2-2; and 2-1, Eul’s evidence Nos. 6, 7, 13; or Eul’s evidence Nos. 14-1, 2, 15-2, 14-1, 31-4, or 4-14; and (c) the evidence or evidence of this case’s exclusion of discretion.

① In 195, the instant reclaimed land appears to belong to the area of Pyeongtaek-si Port Posi Port Posting in the first master plan for the comprehensive development of the Asia-si Port 1995. From the perspective of the completion of the construction, it was possible to connect the land with Pyeongtaek-si with the land and to build the sea, which is the Simsan-si, or to build the land-to-land. There is no ground to deem that the instant reclaimed land was established under the premise that the instant reclaimed land will belong to the jurisdiction of the Simsan-si. Moreover, it is difficult to find that it was established under the premise that the instant reclaimed land will belong to the jurisdiction of the Simyeong-si Port Possi. The instant reclaimed land itself has management authority as the “State Trade Port Possi” (Articles 3(2)1 and 20(1) of the Harbor Act), and Article 3(1) [Attachment 1] and (2) [Attachment 2] of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and the “The chief of Pyeongtaek-si Port and Fisheries

② A harbor created in the instant reclaimed land is connected with a hinterland’s cable industrial complex and connected with the same transport network. In addition, most Chinese cargo is being transported into the Seoul Metropolitan Area through Pyeongtaek-si.

③ At present, the reclaimed land of this case is adjacent only to land on the side of Pyeongtaek-si, is divided into the sea between Mangjin-si and Mangsan-si, and is far far far far far far earlier from Pyeongtaek-si.

(4) The distance of public offices, etc., of Pyeongtaek-si, where the provision of electricity, telecommunications, waterworks, sewerage, gas, etc. on the side of Pyeongtaek-si is more efficient, considering topographical conditions.

⑤ From among the enterprises occupying the reclaimed land of this case, the position that the jurisdiction of the instant case was determined as Pyeongtaek-si by the decision of the instant case, and that Tae Young-gu Terminal Co., Ltd. and Karopiura, Inc. would be determined as soon as possible, not the position that the jurisdiction was determined as the jurisdiction of the Siljin-si.

(6) The instant reclaimed land was created as part of a harbor development project, which develops the original “hyeong Port” as a trade port managed by the State. The Pyeongtaek Port was the fishery harbor of Pyeongtaek-do fishermen before, but almost lost the function as a fishery harbor by the State’s harbor development project. On the other hand, on the other hand, on the Dasan-si fishermen, even though some fishing grounds were lost, it appears that the fishery may continue.

(3) Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion that there is a defect in the balancing of interest in the instant decision is without merit.

6. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed as it is without merit, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing party including the part resulting from the participation in the lawsuit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim H-soo (Presiding Justice)

[Attachment] Drawings and Round Port Drawings and List of Reclaimeds: Omitted