[1] The case holding that the ordinances of Gwangju Metropolitan City cannot be deemed null and void due to the lack of delegation by the laws of Gwangju Metropolitan City, or contrary to the principle of excessive prohibition and equality, as a part of the restructuring policy for local administrative organizations in the state of national financial crisis following the so-called foreign financial crisis, which was amended to abolish the organization of assistant technical staff engaged in autopsy and remove the corresponding quota

[2] The case holding that it is not illegal that the dismissal standard as stipulated in Article 62 (3) of the Local Public Officials Act is not determined when the head of the Gwangju Metropolitan City's Water Service Center ex officio dismissal of all of the trillion assistant members due to the abolition of the organization of the trillion assistant members of the Water Service Center and the removal of its corresponding quota due to the amendment of the Gwangju Metropolitan City's Ordinance

[1] The case holding that since Article 103 (1) of the former Local Autonomy Act (amended by Act No. 7846 of Jan. 11, 2006) provides that "a local government shall have a local public official borne at the expense of the local government, and the prescribed number of local public officials shall be determined by ordinances of the local government concerned in accordance with the standards prescribed by the Presidential Decree, and Articles 13, 14, 20, and 21 of the former Regulations on the Administrative Organizations and Standards for the Fixed Number of Personnel, etc. of the local government (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1650 of Sep. 9, 199), the standards for the fixed number of local government personnel are specifically provided in the above Articles 13, 14, 20, and 21 of the former Local Autonomy Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16550 of Jan. 11, 2006), the amended Ordinance to abolish the prescribed number of local public officials corresponding thereto, based on delegation of Article 103 (1) of the above Local Autonomy Act, it does not violate the principle of equality.

[2] The case holding that it is not illegal that the dismissal standard as stipulated in Article 62 (3) of the Local Public Officials Act is not determined when the head of the Gwangju Metropolitan City's Water Service Center ex officio dismissal of all of the assistant inspectors as the organization for the operation of the water service center was abolished by the amendment of the Gwangju Metropolitan City's Ordinance and the corresponding quota was deleted.

[1] Articles 15 and 103(1) of the former Local Autonomy Act (amended by Act No. 7846 of Jan. 11, 2006); Articles 13, 14, 20, and 21 of the former Regulations on Administrative Organizations and Standards for Quota, etc. of Local Governments (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1650 of Sept. 9, 199); Articles 11 and 37(2) of the Constitution / [2] Article 103(1) of the former Local Autonomy Act (amended by Act No. 7846 of Jan. 11, 2006); Article 62 of the Local Public Officials Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 2004Du5225 Decided September 8, 2006

Plaintiff 1 and 30 others (Attorney Park Jong-il, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Gwangju Metropolitan City Head of the Waterworks Project (Law Firm Dun Law Office, Attorneys Noh Young-gu et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Gwangju High Court Decision 2002Nu164 delivered on March 25, 2004

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Facts recognized as recorded;

The record reveals the following facts.

A. In the national crisis following the so-called foreign exchange crisis, Gwangju Metropolitan City issued restructuring policies to local administrative organizations by the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs, and conducted analysis of duties and personnel diagnosis to reorganizeize the organization of its affiliated agencies, etc. and to reorganize the distribution of administrative functions. As a result, Gwangju Metropolitan City's Water Supply Business Headquarters (hereinafter "Water Supply Business Headquarters") established a policy to entrust the private sector with water supply inspection among the affairs under its jurisdiction, and on September 3, 1998, the Seoul Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Number of Local Public Officials (Ordinance No. 2818, hereinafter "Ordinance No. 2818, hereinafter "Ordinance"), the Enforcement Rule of the above Ordinance (Ordinance No. 2300, 743 of the Rule), the Seoul Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Allocation of Local Public Officials (Ordinance No. 230), and the Seoul Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Fixed Number of Local Public Officials (Ordinance No. 743), the organization was abolished and the full number of assistant members corresponding thereto was deleted.

B. The Defendant: (a) established a private company composed of small-scale steering staff in each region in order to relieve the members of the water supply headquarters due to the abolition of the organization of the steering staff; (b) prepared a plan to entrust the inspection to the company; (c) decided on January 1, 2001; and (d) 56 trillion won decided to participate in the inspection.

C. Meanwhile, on October 14, 200, the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs issued a guideline on the resolution of the excess cost of local governments on Oct. 14, 2000 (i.e., the 12200-755) to the effect that the excess cost may be calculated as the excess cost if the total excess cost of each local government exceeds the total vacancy for a limited period from Oct. 10 to July 31, 2001. Accordingly, on December 31, 2000, the excess cost of the waterworks business headquarters as of December 41, 200 was 49.

D. On November 15, 200, the Committee for Selection of Persons subject to Removal of the Waterworks Business Headquarters established two dismissal criteria, including “the method of establishing a corporation with a trillion won and entrusting inspection affairs to all of them ex officio,” and “the method of maintaining the status of public officials until July 31, 2001, 12 persons except for 49 or 12 persons who wish to participate in the establishment of a private company among 61 trillion won and 56 persons who wish to participate in the establishment of a private company.” In the latter case, it is difficult to set the 12 criteria criteria to remain until July 31, 2001, and it is difficult for 56 persons already to participate in the establishment of a private company and to remain at least 5 persons who want to participate in the establishment of the private company, and to be dismissed from the office due to the anticipated disadvantage of all the members who wish to participate in the work, and thus, it is difficult to select some of the expected number of persons to be dismissed from the office.

E. On November 24, 200, the Defendant issued a notice of ex officio dismissal to 60 persons except for one person dismissed from office after passing a special recruitment examination for fire-fighting officers among all the steering assistants of the waterworks headquarters. On December 29, 200, the Defendant issued the instant disposition ex officio dismissal on December 31, 200, including the Plaintiffs.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. Article 103 (1) of the Local Autonomy Act (amended by Act No. 7846 of Jan. 11, 2006) provides that "a local government shall have local public officials borne at the expense of the local government concerned, and the prescribed number of local public officials shall be determined by Municipal Ordinance of the local government concerned in accordance with the standards prescribed by the Presidential Decree." Articles 13, 14, 20, and 21 of the Regulations on the Administrative Organizations and Standards for the Fixed Number of Local Governments (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1650 of Sept. 9, 199) specifically provide for the standards for the fixed number of local public officials. This Ordinance is based on the delegation of Article 103 (1) of the Local Autonomy Act, and it is determined the fixed number of local public officials established in Gwangju Metropolitan City pursuant to the above Presidential Decree. Thus, this Ordinance cannot be deemed null and void since the delegation of the Act is not made.

B. In addition, in order to achieve administrative efficiency by promoting the rationalization and rationalization of the scale of the local government's quota management in accordance with the strong guidelines for promoting the reorganization of local organizations in the national crisis situation, the Ordinance of this case is to entrust the management of water supply inspection to the private sector under reasonable policy judgment based on the analysis of duties and the results of human resources diagnosis of the agencies affiliated with Gwangju Metropolitan City, Gwangju Metropolitan City. The Addenda to this Ordinance of this case provides a transitional provision that public officials in excess of the prescribed number may be regarded as public officials by December 31, 200 due to the abolition, etc. of the organization in the supplementary decree of this case and to maintain their status as public officials and to take measures that enable the defendant to establish a private company for the purpose of water supply inspection to those who wish to be employed by the public, and in light of the above circumstances, even if the plaintiffs' internal affairs were to be abolished after the amendment of the Ordinance of this case and the disposition of this case against the plaintiffs was made due to the abolition of the prescribed number of personnel.

C. Meanwhile, the abolition of the organization of trillion won and the deletion of the corresponding quota in the waterworks headquarters due to the instant ordinances were conducted without any discrimination against all trillion won of the waterworks headquarters, and its implementation was conducted under reasonable policy decisions as seen above. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the instant ordinances violate the principle of equality in relation to all trillion won belonging to Gwangju Metropolitan City and all other local governments' personnel engaged in the inspection of investigators belonging to Gwangju Metropolitan City.

D. Therefore, since the ordinance of this case cannot be deemed to violate the Constitution in violation of the delegated legislative principles, the principle of excessive prohibition, and the principle of equality, the argument in this part of the grounds of appeal that the court below unconstitutionality of the ordinance of this case cannot be accepted.

3. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

Although the Plaintiffs asserted that the instant disposition made in the name of the Defendant was unlawful, the lower court did not render a judgment, even if examining the record, did not find any data that the Plaintiffs asserted as above until the lower court rendered the judgment.

In addition, Article 6 (2) of the Local Public Officials Act provides that the head of a local government may delegate part of his/her authority to appoint, suspend, dismiss, or take disciplinary action against a public official under his/her jurisdiction to the head of a local government, that is, the head of a subsidiary organization, the head of an affiliated organization, the head of a local council, the head of an office, or the head of an office of office of a local council, or the director of an office of an educational committee. Article 2 [Attachment 3] of the Gwangju Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Delegation of Administrative Affairs provides that the head shall delegate part of his/her authority to appoint a public official under his/her jurisdiction to the defendant who is a local public official of Grade VI or lower in general service and a person who has authority to appoint a local public official of Grade VI or lower in technical service belonging to the Gwangju Metropolitan City. The right to appoint the plaintiffs who are a local public official under his/her own name is delegated to the

4. As to the third ground for appeal

Article 2 of the Addenda to the Ordinance of this case provides that "if there are current members exceeding the prescribed number of personnel, by December 31, 200, it shall be deemed that there exists a separate prescribed number of personnel corresponding to the excessive number of personnel" until December 31, 200, and Article 3 (self-regulation 12200-755) of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs of October 14, 200 provides that when calculating the excessive number of personnel, the number of personnel exceeding the prescribed number of personnel of each local government may be calculated as more than the total number of those exceeding the prescribed number of personnel by the local government only from October 1, 200 to July 31, 201, and it shall be deemed that the above 20-day measure should not be taken to reduce the number of personnel beyond the prescribed number of personnel by the above 30-day measure to reduce the number of personnel beyond the prescribed number of personnel by the above 30-day measure to reduce the number of personnel beyond the prescribed number of personnel by the local government.

The decision of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the criteria for the calculation of costs in the disposition of this case.

5. As to the fourth ground for appeal

As seen earlier, as long as Gwangju Metropolitan City established a policy to entrust inspection to a private company established by Gwangju Metropolitan City, which was engaged in water supply operations in accordance with reasonable policy decisions for the restructuring of its affiliated organizations, and revised the Ordinance of this case to abolish the organization of the water supply headquarters and delete the corresponding prescribed number of personnel, so long as the defendant decided to dismiss all of the private assistant members ex officio in order to smoothly promote the private company in the situation where the majority of the assistant members wish to participate in the establishment of the private company, it cannot be said that the determination of dismissal standards taking into account the form of appointment, job performance, job performance, job performance, etc. as provided in Article 62(3) of the Local Public Officials Act is practically insignificant and unnecessary, and thus, it cannot be said that the defendant issued the instant disposition without establishing the dismissal standards, and the defendant is not obligated to prepare the selection criteria, etc. of those subject to relocation similar to the dismissal standards as provided in Article 62(3) of the Local Public Officials Act prior to the disposition of this case, and the possibility of transfer or reappointment of the plaintiffs should not be considered otherwise.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interpretation and application of Article 62 (3) of the Local Public Officials Act.

6. Ground of appeal No. 5

A. The plaintiffs should have heard the opinions of the Gwangju Metropolitan City Personnel Committee pursuant to Article 62 (2) of the Local Public Officials Act in rendering the disposition of this case under the premise that the legitimate subject of the disposition of this case is not the defendant but the Gwangju Metropolitan City Mayor. However, the court below did not render a decision as to the plaintiffs' assertion that the disposition of this case was unlawful, but the records are not sufficient to find any data that the plaintiffs asserted as above up to the court below, and as seen earlier, the defendant was legally delegated the authority to take the disposition of this case by the Gwangju Metropolitan City Mayor, and the opinion of the Personnel Committee of the Ministry of Waterworks before the defendant takes the disposition of this case, so it cannot be deemed that the disposition of this case violates Article 62 (2) of the Local Public Officials Act. Therefore, the above ground of appeal is without merit.

B. In addition, according to the records, the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs issued the guidelines to resolve the excess cost of the local government (self 12200-409) on May 27, 2000 to the person subject to ex officio dismissal by not later than three months prior to the scheduled date of dismissal. However, the defendant issued the notice to the plaintiffs on November 24, 200 and issued the disposition of this case on December 29, 200 after giving the notification to the plaintiffs on November 24, 200. However, the above guidelines to resolve the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs merely stated that the defendant did not comply with the above guidelines, and even if the defendant did not comply with the above guidelines, the disposition of this case cannot be deemed unlawful as it lacks procedural legitimacy.

The decision of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error of law in the incomplete hearing as to the procedural legitimacy of the disposition of this case.

7. Ground of appeal No. 6

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, based on the adopted evidence, the defendant recommended all of the plaintiffs to participate in the establishment of a private company through a briefing session and a letter, etc., consulted with the mediation officer, and recognized that all the mediation clerks who wish to participate in the establishment of a private company participated in the private company and are currently entrusted with the inspection by the defendant. In light of the above circumstances, the defendant made efforts to minimize damage caused by dismissal in the disposition of this case, and rejected the plaintiffs' assertion that the disposition of this case was unlawful because they did not take measures to maintain their status.

In light of the records, we affirm the fact-finding and judgment of the court below, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of facts against the rules of evidence or misunderstanding of legal principles as to guarantee of status in dismissal disposition against the rules of evidence.

8. Conclusion

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 Shin Hyun-chul (Presiding Justice)