[1] Where a municipal ordinance constitutes an administrative disposition subject to an appeal litigation, and in such a case, the eligibility for a lawsuit seeking nullification of the municipal ordinance (head of the local government

[2] In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the ordinance on education, the standing for the defendant (superintendent of education)

[1] In a case where a municipal ordinance without involvement in the enforcement of the municipal ordinance directly affects the specific rights and obligations of the people or legal interests as an administrative disposition subject to appeal litigation, and in filing a lawsuit seeking nullification of such municipal ordinance, the head of the local government, which is not a local council having no authority to express the intention of the local government as an internal decision-making authority of the local government, but has the right to promulgate the municipal ordinance as an executive authority of the local government under Articles 19(2) and 92 of the former Local Autonomy Act (amended by Act No. 4741 of March 16, 1994).

[2] According to Articles 14(5) and 25 of the former Local Education Autonomy Act (amended by Act No. 4951 of Jul. 26, 1995), an institution executing affairs concerning education, art and science of a City/Do shall be the superintendent of a City/Do office of education, and a City/Do office of education shall have the right to promulgate an ordinance concerning local education. Thus, in filing a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of an ordinance concerning education, the superintendent of a City/Do office of education shall be the defendant.

[1] Articles 2(1)1, 13, and 38(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act; Articles 19(2) and 92 of the former Local Autonomy Act (amended by Act No. 4741 of Mar. 16, 1994) / [2] Articles 13 and 38(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act; Articles 14(5) and 25 of the former Local Education Autonomy Act (amended by Act No. 4951 of Jul. 26, 1995)

Plaintiff 1 and 16 others (Attorneys Kim Chang-joon et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Gyeonggi-do Council (Dongdong Law Office, Attorneys Kim Young-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 94Gu26631 delivered on May 16, 1995

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Where a municipal ordinance, without involvement in enforcement, has a legal effect that directly affects the specific rights and obligations of citizens or legal interests as an administrative disposition subject to appeal litigation, and in filing a lawsuit to nullify the invalidity of such municipal ordinance, an administrative agency which has taken a disposition standing for being accused under Articles 38(1) and 13 of the Administrative Litigation Act, is not a local council which is not an internal decision-making authority of a local government or a local government, but has a right to promulgate the municipal ordinance as an executive authority of a local government under Articles 19(2) and 92 of the Local Autonomy Act (amended by Act No. 4741 of Mar. 16, 1994).

Meanwhile, according to Articles 14(5) and 25 of the Local Education Autonomy Act (amended by Act No. 4951 of Jul. 26, 1995), an institution that executes affairs concerning education, art and science of a City/Do shall be the superintendent of a City/Do office of education and the superintendent of a City/Do office of education shall have the right to promulgate an ordinance concerning local education. Thus, in filing a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of an ordinance concerning education, the superintendent of a City/Do office of education, who is the relevant executive agency, shall be the defendant.

In the same purport, the judgment of the court below is just to determine that the lawsuit of this case filed by the local council as the defendant is unlawful since the defendant of this case is the legitimate Mayor/Do superintendent of the Office of Education of the City/Do, since the defendant of this case is the legitimate Mayor/Do superintendent of the Office of Education of the City/Do, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the eligibility for the defendant in the lawsuit of nullification of the Ordinance, such as the argument, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the eligibility for the defendant in the lawsuit of nullification of the Ordinance.

2. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)