(a) Period during which a request for reconsideration may be made in accordance with the provisions of Article 159 (1) of the Local Autonomy Act; and

(b) The case holding that since it cannot be readily concluded that the Ordinance for Disclosure of Administrative Information adopted by the Cheongju-si City Council limits the rights of residents or imposes obligations on residents, it does not necessarily require separate delegations of Acts in its enactment;

C. Whether a local government can independently regulate the disclosure of administrative information related to its own business in consideration of the characteristics of each region (affirmative)

(d) The case holding that the administrative information disclosure ordinance bill under the above "B" was only limited to documents, etc. prepared or acquired with respect to autonomous affairs and the delegated affairs of an organization under Article 9 of the same Act as an executive organ of a local government, and it did not deviate from the scope of the legislative authority of the Municipal Ordinance;

E. Whether Article 33(2) of the Regulations on Administrative Affairs as to whether to permit the disclosure of information by an administrative agency gives discretion to this administrative agency (negative)

(f) The case holding that the proposed Ordinance on the Disclosure of Administrative Information under Paragraph (b) above does not violate Article 33(2) of the Administrative Management Regulations

(g) The case holding that it cannot be deemed that there was no special exception against the claimant regarding the disposition of the executive agency, since the objection to which the administrative information disclosure ordinance bill as mentioned in the above Paragraph (b) is recognized was added to the method of remedy for infringement of rights at the same or selective request

H. Whether the "approval of the Minister of Home Affairs" under Article 41 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act concerning the establishment of a collegiate administrative agency is a prerequisite for the effect of the resolution of the Ordinance (negative)

(i) Whether a local council member violates an Act or subordinate statute to participate in the Administrative Information Disclosure Deliberation Committee (negative)

A. A request for reconsideration under the provisions of Articles 19(3), 98(1) and 99(1) of the Local Autonomy Act and a request for reconsideration under the provisions of Article 159(1) of the same Act shall be deemed different from each other because they differently stipulate the requirements, object, etc. so the period of request for reconsideration under the provisions of Article 159(1) of the same Act shall not apply or apply mutatis mutandis to a request for reconsideration under the provisions of Article 159(1) of the same Act. However, when a lawsuit is filed with the Supreme Court under the provisions of Article 159(3) of the same Act, a request for reconsideration under the provisions of Article 159(1) of the same Act shall not be made at any time, but shall be limited to the time until the decision becomes final and conclusive as it cannot

B. The case holding that since the Cheongju City Administrative Information Disclosure Ordinance which was decided by the Cheongju City Council is the fundamental content of the realization of the right to know the residents to administration, but it excludes the possibility of infringement on the rights and interests of individuals, it cannot be readily concluded that it is a municipal ordinance that limits the rights of residents or imposes obligations on the residents, and therefore, it does not necessarily require separate delegation of Acts in its enactment.

C. As long as a draft of the administrative information disclosure municipal ordinance is understood to be subject to disclosure only of information on autonomous affairs, etc., which are not state delegated affairs, it shall not necessarily comply with the nationwide uniform standards, but may independently regulate the affairs of disclosure of administrative information related to one’s own duties in consideration of the characteristics of each region.

D. The case holding that the administrative information disclosure ordinances under Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Administrative Information Disclosure Ordinance referred to above "B" do not seem to refer not to the status as a local administrative agency but to only documents, etc. prepared or acquired with respect to the autonomous affairs and the affairs entrusted by a local government under Article 9 of the Administrative Information Disclosure Ordinance, which is a provision for the definition of such administrative information, to the extent that the executive agency (referring to the head of the Cheongju City and Cheongju City under the jurisdiction of Cheongju City pursuant to subparagraph 2 of the same Article) is not a local administrative agency, and it does not seem to include documents prepared or acquired with respect to national affairs, and it does not deviate from the scope of the legislative authority.

E. Whether to permit the disclosure of information by an administrative agency under Article 33(2) of the Office Management Regulations is a binding act that must comply with the request for disclosure of information, barring special circumstances, such as matters concerning confidential information, and cannot be interpreted as granting an administrative agency a discretionary power on the disclosure of information.

(f) The case holding that Article 33 (2) of the Administrative Affairs Management Regulations does not violate the duty to disclose certain administrative information except information, etc. prescribed by other Acts and subordinate statutes that are prohibited from disclosure.

(g) The case holding that since an objection to which the administrative information disclosure ordinance bill as mentioned in Paragraph (b) above is recognized is not a pre-determined condition for filing an administrative appeal under the Administrative Appeals Act, it cannot be deemed that the claimant added the method of remedy for the right to file an administrative appeal at the same time and the administrative appeal, and thus it cannot be deemed that deprivation of the right to file an administrative appeal or delaying the exercise of such right, it cannot be deemed that the executive agency provided an unfavorable exception to the claimant

H. In establishing a collegiate administrative body, even if the approval of the Minister of Home Affairs is required in accordance with Article 41 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Autonomy Act, the above provision is merely an internal procedure provision for controlling the administrative organization of the State and it does not appear to be a provision for restricting the voting rights of the local council. Therefore, the approval of the Minister of Home Affairs on the establishment of a collegiate administrative body is a procedure to be taken at the stage of the enforcement of the Municipal Ordinance, and its approval does not constitute a premise that the effect of the Municipal Ordinance

(i) A local council member’s participation in the administrative information disclosure deliberation committee within the administrative information disclosure municipal ordinance at the same rate as public officials, experts, etc. of executive organs for the purpose of enhancing residents’ rights and public interest as the representative of all local residents rather than the member’s qualification does not necessarily violate statutes.

(a) Article 159(b) of the Local Autonomy Act. Article 159(d) of the same Act. Article 11 subparag. 2(f) of the same Act. Article 33(2) of the Administrative Management Regulations (Presidential Decree No. 13390, Jun. 19, 199) Article 43(1)(h) of the Administrative Appeals Act. Article 107 of the Local Autonomy Act; Article 41 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. Article 33 of the Local Autonomy Act

B. Supreme Court Decision 69Da2121 delivered on February 10, 1970, 90Nu6613 delivered on August 27, 1991 (Gong1991, 244). Supreme Court Decision 88Nu9312 delivered on October 24, 1989 (Gong1989, 1802)

Attorney Cheong-ju City Mayor, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Cheong-ju-si, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The re-resolution of the Ordinance for the Disclosure of Administrative Information (hereinafter referred to as the "Ordinance") that was processed by the defendant of the claim at the sixth regular session of the Cheongju-si, 112 December 26, 1991, is invalid.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

1. According to the evidence No. 1 to No. 9, the defendant, on November 25, 1991, passed a resolution on the draft of the Ordinance for Disclosure of Administrative Information (hereinafter referred to as the "Information Disclosure Ordinance") with no dispute over the establishment of the process of filing the lawsuit in this case and the draft of the Ordinance for Disclosure of Administrative Information, on November 25, 1991, transferred the same month to the plaintiff on December 28, 199. The plaintiff made a request for reconsideration pursuant to Article 19(3) of the Local Autonomy Act on December 13, 199. Meanwhile, the plaintiff again filed the request for reconsideration to the defendant on the 24th of the same month on the 20th of the same month after the Do governor's re-resolution without correction as to the above request for reconsideration, the Information Disclosure Ordinance stipulates that the plaintiff is able to prepare or acquire the administrative information as a matter of duty by the executing agency, and that the public agency is not obliged to disclose information within 30 days after the date it received the request for reconsideration or non-public notice (Article 1).

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s main defense

Article 19(3), Article 98(1), and Article 99(1) of the Local Autonomy Act limit the period of the request for reconsideration to 15 days from the date of receipt of the resolution on the local council's resolution on the resolution on the resolution of the local council, including the Municipal Ordinance. However, the State's request for reconsideration under Article 159(1) of the same Act merely exercises the right to supervise the local government by lending the internal control form of the local government's request for reconsideration, which is the request for reconsideration by the head of the local government. Thus, the Plaintiff asserts that the request for reconsideration under Article 159(1) of the same Act should be limited to 15 days from the date of receipt of the resolution, 26 days from the date of transfer of the Municipal Ordinance, and the Plaintiff made the request

However, a request for reconsideration under Articles 19(3), 98(1) and 99(1) of the Local Autonomy Act and a request for reconsideration under Article 159(1) of the same Act shall be deemed different from each other because the requirements and objects of the request for reconsideration are different. Therefore, with respect to a request for reconsideration under Article 159(1) of the same Act, the period of request for reconsideration under Article 159(1) of the same Act shall not be applied or applicable mutatis mutandis.

However, in light of the fact that Article 159 (3) of the same Act provides that when a lawsuit has been filed with the Supreme Court, the effect of the resolution shall be suspended, not from time to time, but from time until the time the resolution becomes final and conclusive as unusable for the request for reconsideration, a request for reconsideration under Article 159 (1) of the same Act shall be limited. However, if the plaintiff has issued a request for reconsideration within the period of the request for reconsideration under Article 19 (3) of the same Act, and the defendant has not yet passed the request for reconsideration within the period of the request for reconsideration under Article 19 (3) of the same Act, and the request for reconsideration under Article 159 of the same Act

3. Whether the draft information disclosure municipal ordinance violates statutes;

A. As to the fact that there is no legal ground for national unification

The plaintiff asserts that since the information disclosure affairs are common interests in the nation as a whole, it is necessary to process the information disclosure affairs in a uniform manner throughout the country, it is possible to enact ordinances only within the scope of the standards systemized by the law, but it is possible to enact ordinances.

First of all, according to Article 15 of the Local Autonomy Act, local governments may enact municipal ordinances concerning administrative affairs within the scope of statutes, but they shall have the authority to delegate laws when they determine penal provisions. Thus, local governments may enact municipal ordinances without statutory delegation, unless the contents pertaining to the restriction of residents' rights or the imposition of obligations, or penal provisions (see Supreme Court Decision 69Da2121, Feb. 10, 1970). The draft of the Information Disclosure Ordinance of this case excludes the possibility of infringement of individuals' rights and interests, even though it is based on the realization of residents' right to know about administrative affairs as seen earlier, it cannot be concluded that the draft of the Information Disclosure Ordinance of this case is a municipal ordinance that limits residents' rights or imposes duties on citizens, and therefore, it does not require individual delegation of laws.

Furthermore, according to Article 11 subparagraph 2 of the Local Autonomy Act, local governments cannot process state affairs that require uniform processing on a national scale, such as price policies, financial policies, export and import policies, etc. However, with respect to the act of abusing administrative information disclosure system, it is difficult to see that the process of handling information disclosure affairs is necessarily required across a national scale, and as to the act of abusing administrative information disclosure system, it is not necessary to maintain a uniform legal standard in the nation-wide system because the draft of the Information Disclosure Ordinance in this case provides that the disclosure of information in the process of decision-making by other Acts and subordinate statutes shall not be made public under Article 5, as well as the information in the process of decision-making between the executive organs or other organizations, which is highly likely to impede the proper decision-making process, such as information prepared and acquired by mutual consultation or request between the state or public organizations, which is likely to undermine their mutual relations.

Rather, since the disclosure system of administrative information has been adopted and implemented in each country around the world for a long time, it is difficult to deny that the legislation related to the system is desirable even in Korea (in this sense, the plaintiff does not argue that the disclosure system of administrative information itself is unconstitutional and illegal). As seen later, as long as it is clear that the disclosure of administrative information is subject to only the information on autonomous affairs, not the state delegated affairs, it does not necessarily comply with the nationwide uniform standards, but it seems that a local government can independently regulate the disclosure of administrative information related to its own affairs in consideration of the characteristics of each region. Therefore, it is difficult to prevent such local government from exercising its independent legislative power, which is a local government, due to the lack of legislation in the old country. The argument is without merit.

B. As to the fact that the state affairs are subject to handling

The plaintiff argues that the draft of the Information Disclosure Ordinance without clarifying the scope of information subject to disclosure is beyond the scope of the enactment of the Ordinance by prescribing all information prepared, retained, and managed by the enforcement agency with respect to the affairs delegated by the State.

According to the main sentence of Article 15 of the Local Autonomy Act, local governments may enact municipal ordinances with regard to their affairs within the scope of statutes. Thus, local governments may enact municipal ordinances, i.e., overall affairs within the jurisdiction of local governments under Article 9 (1) of the same Act, i.e., autonomous affairs within the jurisdiction of local governments under their jurisdiction and affairs belonging to local governments under the statutes. In addition to the purport of the defendant's assertion, the "documents, etc. prepared or acquired by the executive agency" under Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the same Act refers not to the status of the executive agency (referring to the head of the Si/Gu/Cheongju City under the jurisdiction of the Si/Cheongju City under subparagraph 2 of the same Article), but to the executive agency as the executive agency of local governments, and it seems that the documents, etc. prepared or acquired with respect to the autonomous affairs and affairs of local governments under Article 9 of the Local Autonomy Act are included in the documents prepared or acquired with respect to national affairs. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion cannot be accepted.

C. As to the fact that the duty to disclose information is in violation of the Business Management Regulations

The plaintiff asserts that the draft of the Information Disclosure Ordinance was unlawful because it deprived of the administrative agency's discretionary authority to decide whether to disclose the information under Article 33 (2) of the Regulations on Administrative Affairs, which is a superior statute.

According to the Administrative Management Regulations (Presidential Decree No. 13390, Jun. 19, 1991), the scope of the application of the administrative affairs management of the administrative agencies, including the agencies of local governments, shall be limited (Article 2); the administrative agencies’ preparation, implementation, or receipt of documents for performing their official duties shall be prescribed as official documents (Article 3 subparag. 1); and if a person other than the administrative agencies requests perusal or duplication of documents, the administrative agencies that keep the documents shall be permitted to allow such permission except where the documents are classified as confidential or confidential, or where there are special reasons (Article 33(2)).

However, the issue of whether to permit the disclosure of information by an administrative agency under Article 33(2) of the Administrative Management Regulations is a binding act that must comply with the request for disclosure of information, and it cannot be interpreted that the administrative agency has discretionary power over the disclosure of information (see Supreme Court Decision 88Nu9312, Oct. 24, 1989). Thus, as seen earlier, it is not deemed that the draft of the Information Disclosure Ordinance violates the above provision as long as it provides for the duty of disclosure of certain administrative information excluding information that is prohibited from disclosure under other statutes.

The argument is without merit.

D. As to the violation of the Administrative Appeals Act

According to the provisions on the objection system under the Information Disclosure Ordinance, the Plaintiff asserts that the applicant violates Article 43(1) of the Administrative Appeals Act, which provides that the applicant may not provide for any special exception unfavorable to the claimant except as otherwise expressly required by the law, in cases where the applicant may file a petition for objection against the decision of rejection of information disclosure from the date on which the applicant can file a petition to the date on which the Information Disclosure Deliberation Committee requires a maximum of 60 days to the date on which the decision of rejection of information disclosure is made.

However, the decision to refuse the disclosure of information to the claimant by the executive agency shall be deemed a disposition under Article 2 of the Administrative Appeals Act. Accordingly, the claimant may file an administrative appeal under Article 3 (1) of the same Act. An objection recognized under Article 11 of the Information Disclosure Ordinance is not a pre-determined condition for filing an administrative appeal under Article 11 of the same Act, but is not a pre-determined condition for filing an administrative appeal under the Administrative Appeals Act. Thus, it cannot be deemed to deprive the claimant of the right to file an administrative appeal or delay the exercise of such right. Thus, the claimant cannot be deemed to have provided an exceptional provision against the claimant against the disposition of the executive agency. The argument is without merit.

E. As to the establishment, composition, and operation of the Information Disclosure Deliberative Committee violates the Local Autonomy Act and the Enforcement Decree thereof, etc.

The plaintiff argues that the draft of the Information Disclosure Ordinance stipulates the establishment of the Administrative Information Disclosure Deliberation Committee (hereinafter referred to as the "Committee"), which is the collegiate administrative agency without the prior approval of the Minister of Home Affairs, violates the provisions of Article 107 of the Local Autonomy Act and Article 41 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and that the Committee's deliberation and resolution on the objection and notification of the result thereof to the applicant, and it is unclear who would be the party and the relationship of attribution of responsibility when the administrative litigation arises, and that it also contravenes the principle of functional division between the local council and the executive agency

According to Article 107 of the Local Autonomy Act, when it is necessary to perform part of the duties independently, a local government may establish a collegiate administrative agency under the conditions as prescribed by Acts and subordinate statutes or Municipal Ordinances of the local government concerned. However, matters necessary for the establishment and operation thereof shall be prescribed by the Presidential Decree or Municipal Ordinances of the local government concerned. According to Article 41 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, if a local government intends to establish an collegiate administrative agency under Article 107 of the Act, it shall obtain the approval of the Minister of Home Affairs

However, if a committee under Article 12 of the Information Disclosure Ordinance falls under a collegiate administrative agency under Article 107 of the Local Autonomy Act in light of its nature and it is possible to establish it by the Municipal Ordinance, and it shall obtain approval from the Minister of Home Affairs pursuant to Article 41 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the provision of Article 41 of the same Decree is merely an internal procedure regulation for controlling the administrative organization of the State and the local government, and it does not appear to be a regulation for restricting the voting rights of the local council. Therefore, the approval of the Minister of Home Affairs for the establishment of a collegiate administrative agency is a procedure to be taken at the stage of the enforcement of the Municipal Ordinance, and its approval

In addition, Article 11(2) of the Information Disclosure Ordinance provides that the Committee shall make a decision on the objection and notify the applicant of an independent declaration of intention externally. However, since the Information Disclosure Ordinance does not provide for whether the enforcement agency is bound by the decision when the Committee makes a decision on the information disclosure, it cannot be viewed that the information disclosure should be made in accordance with the decision, regardless of the fact that the enforcement agency can revoke the previous decision on the refusal of information disclosure because the decision on the refusal of information disclosure can be respected. Furthermore, as seen earlier, the objection and the decision system of the Committee stipulated in the Information Disclosure Ordinance are not the administrative appeal claim and the decision, which are the exclusive requirements for the institution of administrative litigation, but merely it is recognized as an additional means of relief apart from the administrative appeal.

In addition, the participation of the administrative information disclosure deliberation committee on the draft of the Information Disclosure Ordinance in the proportion of the same number of executive officials, experts, etc. for the promotion of residents' rights and public interest in the position of the representative of all local residents rather than the member's qualification. The assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case disputing its validity on the premise that the draft of the Information Disclosure Ordinance is in violation of the law is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)