[1] Whether a refusal to re-commission a city choir member constitutes a disposition subject to appeal (negative)

[2] Eligibility for defendant in a party's lawsuit disputing legal relations under public law (=rightss such as the State and public organizations)

[1] According to Article 9 (2) 5 (d) and (e) of the Local Autonomy Act, activities of the Gwangju Metropolitan City choir shall be interpreted as part of the public performance of duties of the Gwangju Metropolitan City intended to promote local culture and arts. In addition, activities of the Gwangju Metropolitan City choir shall be conducted as part of the public performance of duties of the Gwangju Metropolitan City, which is intended to promote local culture and arts. A member shall undergo an open screening process to be commissioned as a member. A person falling under the provisions of Article 31 of the Local Public Officials Act shall meet certain ability requirements and qualification requirements. A standing member shall be appointed as a full-time member based on general public officials and shall be dismissed only if there are certain reasons for dismissal, and a provision on remuneration of a local public official shall apply mutatis mutandis to the member. However, since the term of appointment of the choir is similar to that of a local public official, the term of appointment of a member shall not be guaranteed, appointment of local public officials under the Local Public Officials Act and other relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, guarantee of status, guarantee of rights and interests, etc. of the head of the Gwangju Metropolitan City hall shall not be applied mutatis mutandis.

[2] Under Article 3 subparagraph 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 39 of the Administrative Litigation Act, a party suit that contests legal relations under public law has the eligibility to be the defendant.

[1] Article 9 (2) 5 (d) and (e) of the Local Autonomy Act, Article 31 of the Local Public Officials Act, Article 2 and Article 3 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Article 3 subparagraph 2 and Article 39 of the Administrative Litigation Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 92Nu4611 delivered on September 14, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2801), Supreme Court Decision 95Nu4636 delivered on December 22, 1995 (Gong1996Sang, 581), Supreme Court Decision 95Nu10617 delivered on May 31, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 2043) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 90Nu440 Delivered on October 23, 1990 (Gong190, 2441), Supreme Court Decision 9Du2765 delivered on September 8, 200 (Gong200Ha, 2145)

Plaintiff 1 and one other

The president of Gwangju Metropolitan City Culture and Arts Center;

Gwangju High Court Decision 2001Nu136 delivered on August 23, 2001

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the first ground for appeal

Article 9(2)5 (d) and (e) of the Local Autonomy Act provides that the activities of the choir of Gwangju Metropolitan City shall be performed as part of the public performance of duties of Gwangju Metropolitan City to promote local culture and arts. In addition, as determined by the court below, a member shall undergo an open screening to be commissioned as a member as determined by the court below, and a person falling under the provisions of Article 31 of the Local Public Officials Act shall meet certain qualification requirements and qualification requirements. Standing members shall be dismissed on a daily basis as general public officials, and their service rules shall be established only when a certain reason for dismissal exists, and the provisions on remuneration of local public officials shall be applied mutatis mutandis to the members. In addition, the term of appointment of the members is determined and the re-commission is not guaranteed. In addition to the provisions on remuneration of local public officials, the defendant shall be deemed to have failed to be appointed as a member of Gwangju Metropolitan City 1, who is not subject to appeal 96 under the Local Public Officials Act and other relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, and the defendant shall not be subject to appeal 9.6.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

The grounds of appeal on this point cannot be accepted.

2. On the second ground for appeal

A party suit that contests legal relations under public law is to be subject to the eligibility of the State, public organization, and the subject of other rights who are a party to such legal relations pursuant to Articles 3 subparag. 2 and 39 of the Administrative Litigation Act (see Supreme Court Decision 9Du2765, Sept. 8, 200). Thus, the defendant, who is not the subject of rights, cannot be subject to the eligibility of the party.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no violation of law as argued in the Grounds for Appeal.

The grounds of appeal on this point cannot be accepted.

3. 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 Lee Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)