(a) Whether re-elections pursuant to Article 4 of the Regulations on Delegation and Entrustment of Administrative Authority enacted pursuant to Article 5(1) of the Government Organization Act are made (affirmative)

B. Whether approval by the head of the delegating agency for the Do rules governing the delegation of authority under the preceding paragraph is subject to ex officio investigation (affirmative)

A. The provision of Article 5 (1) of the Government Organization Act is clear that it is a ground provision for delegation and re-election of administrative authority under the law, and there is a purpose of the Government Organization Act to set the outline for the establishment, organization and scope of duties of national administrative agencies, and it is merely a substitute provision for delegation of authority and re-election of authority under the same Act, and it cannot be deemed not a ground provision for delegation and re-election of authority. Thus, if the approval of the delegated agency is granted by the delegated agency pursuant to the provisions of Article 5 (1) of the Government Organization Act, the delegated authority may be re-entrusted to the head of the agency under its jurisdiction such as the head of the Si/Gun/Gu.

B. In the case of the preceding paragraph, the issue of whether the Do rules governing the delegation of authority approved by the head of the delegating agency is an effective requirement of the rule, and thus, the court should investigate it ex officio and determine its validity.

(b)Article 5(1) of the Government Organization Act, Article 4 of the Regulations on Delegation and Entrustment of Administrative Authority, Article 26 of the Administrative Litigation Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 89Nu12127 delivered on September 26, 1989 (Gong1989, 1593) 89Nu5287 delivered on February 27, 1990 (Gong190, 789)

Kim Sung-dam Law Firm, Pacific Law Office Attorneys Kim In-con-law et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee)

Attorney Kim In-hwan, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 87Gu474 delivered on November 23, 1988

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the authority of the Minister of Construction and Transportation concerning the license for automobile depots business or cancellation of license under Articles 4 (1) and 25 of the Automobile depots Act is recognized to be delegated by the Minister of Construction and Transportation under Articles 34 of the same Act, Article 2 subparagraph 1 and 19 of the same Enforcement Decree to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor, Metropolitan City Mayor and Do governor (hereinafter referred to as the "Do governor, etc.") but there is no legal basis for the re-entrustment of authority under the Automobile depots Act, and that the said mother law may re-entrust part of the delegated or entrusted authority to the subsidiary or subordinate administrative agency under the conditions as prescribed by the Acts and subordinate statutes, and that the delegation of authority may not be deemed to have been delegated to the defendant for the purpose of improving the efficiency of administration and the convenience of residents, the Governor, etc. of Article 4 of the Regulations on Entrustment and Entrustment of Authority, which is the Presidential Decree of the Gyeonggi-do government Organization Act, even if it is deemed necessary for the execution of the authority delegated and re-delegation of authority under the provisions of the Government Organization Act.

However, the provision of Article 5 (1) of the Government Organization Act is clear that it is a ground provision for delegation and re-election of administrative authority under the law, and the Government Organization Act establishes a substitute for the establishment of national administrative agencies, organization and scope of duties, and solely for that reason, it cannot be deemed as a ground provision for delegation and re-election of authority (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Nu5287, Feb. 27, 1990; 89Nu12127, Sept. 26, 1989).

Therefore, when the Do governor, etc. has approved by the head of the delegated agency in accordance with the provisions of the above Government Organization Act, he may again delegate the delegated authority to the head of the Si/Gun/Gu to the head of the delegated agency under the conditions as prescribed by the said regulations, and whether there was the approval of the Minister of Construction and Transportation with respect to the above rules for handling Gyeonggi-do affairs is valid. Since the court below should have investigated it ex officio and have judged its validity, it should not be deemed that the above rules for the Gyeonggi-do affairs cannot be deemed the delegation of authority because there was no evidence to obtain the approval without doing so, even though it should have judged its validity, the court below should have determined that the above rules for the affairs of Gyeonggi-do cannot be deemed the delegation of authority.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Justice) Lee Chang-soo Kim Jong-won