(영문) 대법원 2021.2.4.선고 2015추528 판결

The Defendant’s decision on May 4, 2015, on the jurisdiction of the local government with respect to the reclaimed land in Pyeongtaek-gu and Seogjin-do, Chungcheongnam-do, ○○○-ri, △△△△△ (number 1 omitted), (number 2 omitted), (number 3 omitted), (number 4 omitted), (number 5 omitted), (number 5 omitted), and (number 679,589.8 meters in total of the unregistered reclaimed land, shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Details and summary of the decision of this case

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or are recognized by Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1-4, Eul evidence 2-1-3, and the whole purport of the pleadings as a result of on-site inspection.

A. The chief of Pyeongtaek-si regional maritime affairs and fisheries office (the chief of Pyeongtaek-si regional maritime affairs and fisheries office amended the Government Organization Act several times, but the organization and name was changed; hereinafter referred to as the "the chief of Pyeongtaek-si regional maritime affairs and fisheries office") performed a project to build Pyeongtaek-si ports and reclaimed land at the public waters in front of Pyeongtaek-si, Seo-si, Seoul through October 1, 2009 in order to create the road, bank, and miscellaneous land as the wharf, supporting facilities of Pyeongtaek-si ports. Accordingly, reclaimed land (hereinafter referred to as the " reclaimed land of this case").

B. The Constitutional Court rendered a decision that the jurisdiction over the reclaimed land [the △△△△△△△△△△, 7 omitted] was on September 23, 2004 on the adjudication on competence dispute between the Siljin-si (the "Guljin-gun was on January 1, 201 and the Siljin-si without distinguishing it from the Siljin-si; hereinafter referred to as the "Guljin-si") and the defendant's supplementary taxi (hereinafter referred to as the "Gulyeong-si") was on September 23, 2004, the maritime boundary on the topographical map published by the Stateri-si shall be a maritime boundary under the French law, and a specific local autonomy. The reclaimed land created by reclaiming public waters, which was under the jurisdiction of an organization, should be automatically reverted to the jurisdiction of the local government having jurisdiction over the public waters, and (1) the Decree was changed by the Presidential Decree No. 10650, Dec. 32, 2004 to the Siljin-si.

D. Accordingly, from February 9, 2010 to August 24, 2010, the Defendant’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s assistant taxi head (hereinafter referred to as “Yyeong-si head”) filed an application with the Minister of Public Administration and Security to determine a local government to which the Defendant will belong as Pyeongtaek-si pursuant to Article 4(4) of the Local Autonomy Act (wholly amended by Act No. 17893, Jan. 12, 2021; hereinafter the same) (hereinafter referred to as “the Plaintiff’s assistant taxi head”). On April 2, 2012, the chief of Pyeongtaek-si regional maritime affairs and fisheries office requested the Defendant to determine the local government to which the reclaimed land belongs (hereinafter referred to as the “local government to which the reclaimed land belongs”) No. 1377, Apr. 2, 2012.

E. On April 13, 2015, the Central Dispute Mediation Committee (hereinafter referred to as the "Committee") under the jurisdiction of the defendant local government to which the defendant belongs (hereinafter referred to as the "Committee") decided on the attached table Nos. 5, 200Hun-Ma2, which decided on September 23, 2004 by the Constitutional Court Decision 200Hun-Ma2, which decided on September 23, 2004, to have jurisdiction over the Jin-si among the reclaimed land listed in the attached table No. 1, the part located within the green source in the attached table No. 282,760.7m [1, 282,760-7m (number No. 8, 9 omitted), (number 10 omitted), (number 11 omitted), (number 12 omitted), (number 12 omitted), the rest of the reclaimed land No. 679,589m (number No. 1, 2004) in the attached table] is determined as follows.

① The criteria for determining the jurisdiction of reclaimed land, which was presented by the Constitutional Court Decision 2000HunRa2 dated September 23, 2004, that is, public waters reclaimed land should automatically be attributed to the jurisdiction of a specific local government according to the maritime boundary line on topographical maps, are not applicable after the amendment of Article 4 of the Local Autonomy Act on April 1, 2009.

② If a local government is to belong to the reclaimed land based on the maritime boundary line on the topographical map, the harbor and its hinterland complex shall be divided into Pyeongtaek-si, Jin-si, and Isan-si, which is not a decision taking into account the geographical relation, and thus the efficiency of the utilization and management of the national land will be lowered.

③ Considering the legislative intent of Article 4 of the Local Autonomy Act as amended on April 1, 2009, Constitutional Court Decision 2000Hun-Ma2, Sept. 23, 2004 and the amended on April 1, 2009, comprehensively taking into account the legislative intent of Article 4 of the Local Autonomy Act, it is reasonable for the Constitutional Court to vest the embankment in the jurisdiction of the Si of the Si of the Si of the Si of the Gu of the Gu of the Gu of the Gu of the Gu of the Gu of the Gu of the Gu of the Gu of the Gu of the Gu of the Gu of the Gu

F. On May 4, 2015, the Defendant rendered a decision to determine a local government to which a landfill belongs attached Nos. 5 through 1 reclaimed land belongs (hereinafter referred to as “instant decision”) with the same content as the result of the Committee’s resolution on May 4, 2015, and notified the Plaintiffs, Pyeongtaek-si, the chief of Pyeongtaek-si regional maritime affairs

G. On May 18, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed the instant lawsuit seeking revocation of the part within the jurisdiction of Pyeongtaek-si, as stated in the instant decision’s purport of claim.

2. As to the assertion that Article 4 of the Local Autonomy Act is unconstitutional

A. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

If Article 4(3) through (7) of the Local Autonomy Act purports to exclude the criteria of the previous maritime boundaries, this means that the defendant, without any basis, could arbitrarily determine the jurisdiction of the local government, thereby infringing on the essence of the local autonomy system guaranteed by the Constitution, infringing on the Constitutional Court's competence adjudication, and violates the principle of clarity and the principle of statutory reservation. The decision of this case is based on an unconstitutional law and thus,

B. Determination

(1) Article 117(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea provides that local governments shall handle affairs concerning the welfare of residents and manage property, and establish regulations concerning autonomy within the scope of statutes (Article 117(1)). While the types of local governments generally guarantee autonomous administration by local governments, the types of local governments shall be prescribed by Acts (Article 117(2)), and matters concerning the organization and operation of local governments shall be prescribed by Acts (Article 118(2)) (see Constitutional Court Order 2015Hun-Ma3, Jul. 16, 2020).

(2) Article 4(1) of the Local Autonomy Act amended by Act No. 9577 of Apr. 1, 2009 provides that "the name and district of a local government shall be identical to that of the previous local government, the alteration of the name and district, or the abolition, establishment, division or consolidation of a local government shall be determined by Act: Provided, That the alteration of the boundary of a district under the jurisdiction of a local government and the alteration of the name of a Chinese government shall be determined by Presidential Decree," notwithstanding Article 4(3)1 of the Public Waters Management and Reclamation Act (hereinafter referred to as "Public Waters Act"), a local government to which a reclaimed land under the Public Waters Management and Reclamation Act (hereinafter referred to as " reclaimed land") belongs shall be determined by the Minister of the Interior and Safety pursuant to paragraphs (4) through (7) of the same Article, and Article 4(4) through (7) provides that the Minister of the Interior and Safety and its affiliated committees shall comply with the resolution and decision on the jurisdiction of a reclaimed land, and the substantive standards or factors of such resolution and decision shall not be specifically prescribed.

(3) According to Article 67 of the Spatial Data Establishment and Management Act and Article 58 subparag. 17, 18, and 19 of the Enforcement Decree of the Spatial Data Management Act, public waters on land are located on the surface or water surface, which is the object of a real right, and the competent local government determines on the basis of the land. However, since the bottom floor of public waters on sea is not considered as "land" which is the object of a real right, it constitutes a case where a land which had not existed before at the time of construction of reclaimed land is newly created. Since new land is not included in the previous local government, it is determined by the Minister of Public Administration and Security in the form of law or Article 4 subparag. 17, 18, and 19 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, no local government until that time belongs to any local government. Accordingly, the determination on the use of public waters and its nature cannot be applied differently from the determination on the use of reclaimed land by 200 see Article 4(1) of the Local Autonomy Act.

(4) ① The jurisdiction of a local government is not the core area of the local autonomy system, but the scope of the legislative formation authority; ② the local government is established only in the case of a maritime public waters reclaimed; ③ Article 4(1) of the amended Local Autonomy Act provides that, in principle, the jurisdiction of a local government shall be set by the law; but exceptionally, Article 4(3) delegates the authority of the Minister of Public Administration and Security to resolve problems arising from the determination of a local government based on the maritime boundary line through the Constitutional Court’s procedure of adjudication on disputes over authority to the public waters reclaimed in the case of a public waters reclaimed. ④ In determining a local government that has jurisdiction over a maritime public waters reclaimed, the State delegated the authority of the Minister of Public Administration and Security to decide the jurisdiction carefully through a certain procedure of hearing the opinion; ④ the interests of the relevant local government or residents, other than the interests of the local government concerned, shall also be compared to the efficient and balanced utilization and preservation of the national land (Article 120(2) and Article 122 of the Constitution); and the balanced development between regions (Article 123(2).4).

(5) On the premise that Article 4 of the amended Local Autonomy Act was constitutional on July 16, 2020 on the adjudication on competence disputes brought against the defendant, Pyeongtaek-si, or the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport at Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, the Sin-si, the Sin-si, the Sin-si, and the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, Article 4 of the amended Local Autonomy Act on April 1, 2009, the issue on the jurisdiction of the reclaimed land of public waters was determined that the issue on the jurisdiction of the reclaimed land of public waters does not belong to the adjudication on competence disputes under the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court. Accordingly, Article 4 of the amended Local Autonomy Act cannot

(6) Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion that Article 4 of the Local Autonomy Act is unconstitutional is without merit.

3. As to the assertion that the application for the determination on jurisdiction of the head of Pyeongtaek-si is unlawful

A. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

(1) As to the landfill Nos. 5-8 of the attached table Nos. 5-1 and 1 to 5-8 of the reclaimed land for which the head of Pyeongtaek-si applied to the Defendant for jurisdiction over several occasions, the application for the part of the reclaimed land was filed after the completion inspection. As such, the period of application under Article 4(4) of the Local Autonomy Act was over, and thus, is unlawful. The part of the reclaimed land No. 5 or 2

(2) Article 4(4) of the Local Autonomy Act provides that "the head of a related local government shall be deemed to mean "the Mayor/Do Governor" only. The head of Pyeongtaek-si, the head of the basic local government, is not included therein, and is not the applicant for the decision on the jurisdiction of reclaimed land.

Of the instant decision made upon the application of the head of Pyeongtaek-si, attached Forms 5 through 1 is illegal.

B. Determination as to the purpose of application and argument

(1) Article 4(4) of the Local Autonomy Act provides that “The reclamation license agency under Article 28 of the Public Waters Act or the head of a related local government shall apply for the determination of a local government to which the relevant area belongs to the Minister of the Interior and Safety before completion inspection under Article 45 of the Public Waters Act in cases falling under Article 4(3)1.” According to Article 45 of the Public Waters Act, upon completion of reclamation works, the reclamation licensee shall apply for completion inspection to the reclamation license agency after determining the location and land category of reclaimed land (Article 67 of the Spatial Data Management Act), as prescribed by Presidential Decree, and upon receipt of an application for completion inspection, the reclamation permitting agency shall issue a completion inspection certificate prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries and publicly announce such fact. In such cases, the landowner or reclamation licensee shall apply for new registration of land (Article 2 subparag. 29, Articles 77 and 87 of the Spatial Data Management Act, Article 63 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 81(1)2) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act.

(2) As seen earlier, the land newly created by the execution of reclamation works on the maritime public waters requires the State to determine the competent local government in the form of law or in the form of decision of the Minister of Public Administration and Security pursuant to the main sentence of Article 4(1) of the Local Autonomy Act pursuant to Article 4(3) of the Local Autonomy Act. Since no later than that time belongs to any local government, there is no "cadastral authority which will manage the cadastral record by newly making land registration (Article 2 subparag. 18 of the Spatial Data Management Act). Therefore, even if a land owner or reclamation licensee applied for a new registration of land to the head of a specific local government and completed the registration of the cadastral record by voluntarily applying for a new registration of land by the State to the head of a specific local

(3) In full view of such relevant provisions and legal principles, Article 4(4) of the Local Autonomy Act requires the Minister of Public Administration and Security to apply for a decision of attribution to the Minister of Public Administration and Security prior to completion inspection so that the reclamation license agency or the head of the relevant local government who has an interest in reclaimed land jurisdiction may apply for a decision of attribution to the Minister of Public Administration and Security as soon as possible, and thereby, to prevent the situation in which the landowner or reclamation licensee applied for a new registration of land to the head of a specific local government before the determination of attribution of reclaimed land.

Unless the competent local government is determined in the form of law pursuant to the main sentence of Article 4(1) of the Local Autonomy Act, the determination of attribution of the jurisdiction of the Minister of Public Administration and Security pursuant to Article 4(3) of the Local Autonomy Act is required. Thus, even if the application was not made pursuant to Article 4(4) of the Local Autonomy Act, it cannot be deemed that the authority of the Minister of Public Administration and Security should be determined on the relevant reclaimed land. Even if the reclamation license agency or the head of the relevant local government did not apply for the determination of attribution of jurisdiction before completion inspection, it does not constitute an

It should be viewed as "..."

(4) Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ assertion that the instant decision was unlawful by having the application period set by the Pyeongtaek-si head is without merit.

C. Determination on the lack of application authority

(1) As seen earlier, prior to the amendment of Article 4 of the Local Autonomy Act on April 1, 2009, the jurisdiction of the reclaimed land of the public waters was primarily determined through the adjudication procedure on competence disputes between basic local governments (see Constitutional Court Order 2000HunRa2, Sept. 23, 2004). The amendment of Article 4 of the Local Autonomy Act on April 1, 2009 and the procedure for the determination of the jurisdiction of reclaimed land of the Minister of Public Administration and Security was newly established to resolve the problems arising therefrom; and ② in Korea, local governments are divided into two different types, and have a basic local government such as a Si/Gun/Gu within a metropolitan government such as the Special Metropolitan City, Metropolitan City, Special Self-Governing City, Do, and Special Self-Governing Province (hereinafter referred to as a "City/Do"). Considering the fact that certain reclaimed land is determined based on a specific local government, the head of the neighboring local government and the head of the neighboring local government should be deemed to include reclaimed land within the jurisdiction of the metropolitan local government.

(2) Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ assertion to the effect that the instant decision was unlawful as the head of Pyeongtaek-si did not have the right to apply for the determination on attribution of reclaimed land.

4. Regarding the procedural defect argument

A. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

(1) At the time of deliberation and resolution by the Committee for the instant decision, the competent local government left the Cheongnam-do, and deprived of the opportunity to state opinions, thereby violating Article 4(7) of the Local Autonomy Act. (2) The Defendant notified the instant decision by electronic document without the Plaintiffs’ prior consent, and failed to notify the method of appeal, thereby violating Articles 24 and 26 of the Administrative Procedures Act. Accordingly, the instant decision should be revoked on the ground that such procedural defect is unlawful.

B. Determination

(1) In a case where an administrative agency’s procedural justification is lost due to a violation of relevant statutes’ procedural provisions in a disposition procedure, the pertinent disposition shall be unlawful and revoked in principle. However, in extenuating circumstances where it cannot be deemed that the other party to the disposition or a related person’s right to state opinions or defense has been substantially impeded, the relevant disposition cannot be deemed to have been invalidated due to the violation of procedural provisions, and thus, the relevant disposition is not revoked (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Du3339, Mar. 13, 201

(2) According to Article 4 of the Local Autonomy Act, the Minister of Public Administration and Security shall, without delay, widely notify the fact by means of the Official Gazette or the Internet, etc. for at least 20 days after receiving an application for determination on the jurisdiction of reclaimed land pursuant to paragraph (4); Articles 42, 44, and 45 of the Administrative Procedures Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the method of such notification, submission of opinions, etc. (paragraph (5)); the Minister of Public Administration and Security shall determine a local government to which reclaimed land belongs according to the Committee’s deliberation and resolution after the expiration of the period pursuant to paragraph (5); shall notify the licensing authority, competent cadastral authority, and the head of the relevant local government; and (6) the Chairperson of the Committee shall, if deemed necessary in the process of deliberation pursuant to paragraph (6), request the head of the relevant central administrative agency, local government, or the relevant institution or organization to present his/her opinion or to present his/her opinion. In such cases, the Committee shall present an opportunity to present his/her opinion to the head of the relevant local government; (7) No. 2, No. 3, No. 3, No. 3, No. 4, No. 1, and 1, 2, and 1, 1, 2, 5-3, and 2, respectively. 9-1, respectively.

According to the above facts, an interested party’s opportunity to present opinions was granted through public announcement and submission of opinions in the process of deliberation and resolution by the Committee for the instant decision, and accordingly, the Plaintiff Chungcheongnam-do submitted written opinions in fact several times. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the Committee violated Article 4(7) of the Local Autonomy Act or thereby the Committee’s procedural justification was lost for the Committee’s deliberation and resolution, solely on the ground that the Committee did not give a public official of Chungcheongnam-do an opportunity to present opinions orally at the final deliberation and resolution stage.

(3) Article 24(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act provides that the purpose of the Administrative Procedures Act is to ensure fairness, transparency, and reliability of administration and to protect the rights and interests of citizens by providing for common matters concerning administrative procedures and promoting citizens’ participation in administration (Article 1). Article 24(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act provides that, in cases where an administrative agency takes a disposition, it shall be done in writing, except as otherwise provided in other Acts and subordinate statutes, where it is necessary to promptly deal with such disposition or where a matter is insignificant, and in cases where it is conducted in electronic form, the consent of the parties to the disposition must be obtained. This is to ensure clarity of the content of the disposition and to prevent disputes over the existence of the disposition, thereby protecting the rights and interests of the parties to the disposition. Article 26 of the Administrative Procedures Act provides that, when an administrative agency takes a disposition, the parties to the disposition may file an administrative appeal, file an administrative litigation, file a request for objection, and other necessary matters. In general, such administrative disposition is to protect the rights and interests of the parties to the disposition by notifying the method of appeal.

The legislative purpose of the Administrative Procedures Act and the legislative purpose of Articles 24(1) and 26 are ① The plaintiffs are administrative agencies, not “general citizens who become the other party to the disposition” but “head of related local government”. ② The plaintiffs merely failed to obtain a written decision in the paper form and did not substantially impede the decision or the exercise of the right to defense of the plaintiffs since they knew the substantial contents of the decision of this case by receiving a written decision in the form of electronic documents. ③ The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in this case with the Supreme Court within 15 days after being notified of the decision of this case and followed the filing period of the lawsuit in this case, it is difficult to view the decision of this case as procedural defect to the extent that the decision of this case should be revoked, even if the defendant notified the decision of this case in electronic document without prior consent of the plaintiffs or did not notify the method of appeal.

(4) Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion that there are procedural defects to the extent that the decision of this case should be revoked is without merit.

5. As to the assertion of substantive defects

A. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

(1) According to the Constitutional Court Order 200Hun-Ma2 delivered on September 23, 2004, the reclaimed land of this case was confirmed to the jurisdiction of the Jin-si City. The decision of this case is against the binding force of the above Constitutional Court Order, and thus, it should be deemed unlawful.

(2) The Act on the Establishment, etc. of a Si in the urban and rural complex form, which was enacted by Act No. 10993 on August 4, 201 (hereinafter referred to as the “Siljin-si Establishment Act”) stipulates that the area under the jurisdiction of the Siljin-si in the urban and rural complex form (hereinafter referred to as the “Siljin-si Establishment Act”) shall be referred to as the “Siljin-gun, Jin-gun, Jin-si,” and since most of the reclaimed land in this case had already been registered in the Siljin-gun at the time of the enforcement of the Act, it shall be deemed that the reclaimed land was already determined to be under the jurisdiction

(3) The instant decision had already been registered in the inspection of completion of the instant reclaimed land and in the cadastral record for about five years and five months before the instant decision was made after the filing of the application by Pyeongtaek-si, and there was no objection by the Defendant or any other State agency. The instant decision should be deemed unlawful since it contradicts the principle of trust protection, since it undermines the trust between the time when the instant reclaimed land had exercised jurisdiction over the instant reclaimed land between several years and that of Chungcheongnam-do.

(4) When the Defendant exercises its discretionary power over the determination on the jurisdiction of reclaimed land, the relevant local governments and their residents’ interests should be appropriately balanced. However, the instant determination is unlawful since the lack or omission of the consideration of important elements or lack of legitimacy and objectivity in balancing interests among the factors to be considered, and thus, it should be deemed unlawful.

① Comprehensive plans for the development of the coast areas under the Special Act on the Development of the Southern Coast Areas and Inland Areas, third national basic harbor plans, etc. have been formulated on the premise of the jurisdiction of the Sil Jin-si.

(2) One local government shall exercise the jurisdiction, since the total book is to be operated as a single industrial complex.

③ Attached Nos. 1 and the reclaimed land around the bank was already determined under the jurisdiction of the Jinjin-si, and the reclaimed land of this case is planned to be constructed as a connecting road with the Jinjin-si. The main tower of the Western Maritime Station, which is the area adjacent to the maritime boundary line, is installed with a guidance sign at the main tower of the Western Maritime Station. The 4 gas, electricity, industrial water, etc. is supplied through the Yellow Maritime Zone by the enterprise to which the relevant party belongs.

⑤ The companies that moved into the reclaimed land of this case are bound to have jurisdiction over the Sil Jin-si where the regulation of the Seoul Metropolitan Area does not extend.

(6) The location of the reclaimed land of this case has been historically in charge of licensing fishery business, etc., and the validity of the customary law on the maritime boundary was confirmed by the Constitutional Court’s decision. As long as the reclaimed land of this case loses its jurisdiction over the companies attracting the Jin-si, it would incur enormous damages in terms of water water.

B. Determination as to the remainder of the argument except for the allegation of error in profit balancing

(1) The customary law, which was established by the amendment of Article 4 of the Local Autonomy Act on April 1, 2009, with respect to the determination procedure for the jurisdiction of reclaimed land, has become null and void (see, e.g., Constitutional Court Order 2015HunRa3, Jul. 16, 2020). Therefore, the binding force of the Constitutional Court Order 2000Hun-Ma2, Sept. 23, 2004, should be deemed to extend only to the bank No. 1, which is set forth in the attached Table No. 1, which confirms that the jurisdiction of reclaimed land was over time.

(2) As seen earlier, after the amendment of Article 4 of the Local Autonomy Act on April 1, 2009, the State needs to determine the competent local government in the form of law or in the form of decision of the Minister of Public Administration and Security pursuant to the main sentence of Article 4(1) of the Local Autonomy Act with respect to the reclaimed land of maritime public waters. Since the State does not belong to any local government until that time, even if the landowner or the reclamation licensee applied for new registration of land to the head of a specific local government and completed the registration in the cadastral record, it shall be null and void as a disposition by an unauthorized administrative agency without authority. The installation of Jinjin-si, enacted on August 4, 201, means that the jurisdiction of Jinjin-si, which was established on August 4, 201, means that the jurisdiction of the former Jin-si shall be the jurisdiction of the Si of Jin-jin-si, and it cannot be deemed that even if the registration was made without the jurisdiction under Article 4 of the Local Autonomy

(3) As the amendment of Article 4 of the Local Autonomy Act on April 1, 2009, the procedure for determining the attribution of reclaimed land was newly established, the Plaintiffs, “the head of the relevant local government,” who is the “head of the relevant local government,” should be deemed to have known that the procedure for determining the attribution of the jurisdiction newly established with respect to the reclaimed land of this case ought to be followed. Even if they were not aware, gross negligence should be deemed to exist even if they were not known. Through the instant decision, the Plaintiffs’ trust on the premise that the registration of the new registration of the land on the reclaimed land of this case between [Attachment] and [Attachment] before the competent local government was established is null and void.

(4) Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ assertion that the instant decision goes against the binding force of the Constitutional Court Decision 2000Hun-Ma2, the installation method at the time of truth, and the principle of trust protection is without merit. Determination of the defect in the balancing of interests is without merit.

(1) In light of the legislative intent of the amendment of Article 4 of the Local Autonomy Act by Act No. 9577 of Apr. 1, 2009, the Minister of Public Administration and Security and its affiliated committees should be deemed to have the discretion of formation of a wide range when determining a local government to which reclaimed land belongs. However, the discretion of formation is not unlimited but limited by comprehensively considering all relevant interests. The Minister of Public Administration and Security and its affiliated committees are deemed to have the discretion of formation, in a case where: (a) the Minister of Public Administration and Security and its affiliated committees did not make any such profit balancing; or (b) did not include any matters to be included in the subject of consideration of the profit balancing; or (c) did not lack legitimacy and objectivity even if the profit balancing was conducted, the competent decision should be deemed to have been unlawful as a deviation from and abuse of discretionary power.

In light of the purport of the above amendment of the Local Autonomy Act, the Minister of Public Administration and Security and its affiliated committees should generally consider the following matters when determining a local government to which reclaimed land belongs. In particular, in cases of a reclamation project, the whole reclamation project plan is established with a single plan and its contents or the plan is implemented in a phased and successive manner under the Gu’s Gu, even in cases where the determination of attribution of jurisdiction over certain areas, not the whole reclamation area, due to the need for administrative support on the completed portion of reclamation, etc., may have considerable impact on the determination of jurisdiction over the remaining areas of reclamation. Therefore, even in cases where a determination of attribution of jurisdiction is made only for certain areas, the determination of attribution of jurisdiction shall have significant impact on the determination of jurisdiction over the relevant reclamation area, taking into account the overall implementation plan of the relevant reclamation project, the land use plan and purpose by the zone of reclaimed land, the development and utilization plan of a harbor, etc. The determination of attribution of jurisdiction to which the whole area of the relevant reclamation project belongs should be made based on the overall allocation of interests between the competent local government and the local government.

(1) The competent authority shall determine the relevant area and make efficient use of new land available in consideration of the detailed land use plan of each area within reclaimed land and organic use relationship with neighboring areas, etc.

(2) A reasonable boundary shall be established based on the situation in which reclaimed land is used, in consideration of the shape of connection between reclaimed land and another local government's jurisdiction, connection and distance between reclaimed land and another local government's jurisdiction, and the location of natural features, such as roads, rivers, canals, etc., which can be easily recognized as boundary within the jurisdiction of reclaimed land.

(3) The efficiency of administration shall not be significantly impaired considering various factors, such as the connection and distance between reclaimed land and a neighboring local government, the installation and management of infrastructure, such as roads, ports, electricity, waterworks, and telecommunications, the prompt provision of administrative services, and the ability to cope with emergencies.

(4) In consideration of the transportation relationship between reclaimed land and neighboring local governments, accessibility from outside, etc., a local government’s inclusion in the jurisdiction of the residents of reclaimed land in the residential and living convenience shall be considered.

(5) Since a neighboring local government and residents lose adjacent public waters due to the execution of reclamation works, the historical and practical interests of local governments that lose them as a result thereof, and the basis of living and economic interests of their residents, shall be taken into account.

(2) Examining the following facts in light of the following legal principles: evidence Nos. 1 and 2, evidence Nos. 5-1 and 5-3, evidence Nos. 1-4, evidence Nos. 4-1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 5-1, 5-2, Eul evidence No. 7-1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 8-1, 8-2, 9-1, 10-1, Eul evidence Nos. 11-2, 13-1, 13-2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2-2, 2- Eul evidence Nos. 2-1, 2-2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 6, 7, 13-2, Eul evidence Nos. 14-1, 14-2, 15-2, 31-4, or 4-14, and 14-2, the Defendant’s explanation or examination of the facts in light of the aforementioned legal principles:

① In 195, the instant reclaimed land appears to be included in the Pyeong Port Posi Port Posting Zone, and the form after completion could only be connected to the land of Pyeongtaek-si and the sea of Pyeong-si, the Sinsan-si, or the construction of a lusium. There is no ground to deem that the instant reclaimed land in this case was established under the premise that the reclaimed land in this case will be attributed to the jurisdiction of Pyeong-si, the State Trade Port itself has the management authority as the "State Trade Port" (Article 3(2)1 and Article 20(1) of the Harbor Act, Article 3(1)1 and attached Table 3(2)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and the "Administrator of Pyeong-si Port Posing the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, a specialized administrative agency affiliated with the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries upon delegation by the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries.

② A harbor created in the instant reclaimed land is connected with a hinterland’s cable industrial complex and connected with the same transport network. In addition, most Chinese cargo is being transported into the Seoul Metropolitan Area through Pyeongtaek-si.

③ At present, the reclaimed land of this case is adjacent only to land on the side of Pyeongtaek-si, is divided into the sea between Mangjin-si and Mangsan-si, and is far far far far far far earlier from Pyeongtaek-si.

(4) Effectively supplying electricity, telecommunications, waterworks, sewerage, gas, etc. on the side of Pyeongtaek-si due to topographical conditions is close to the distance of office, etc. of Pyeongtaek-si.

⑤ From among the enterprises occupying the reclaimed land of this case, the position that the jurisdiction of the instant case was determined as Pyeongtaek-si by the decision of the instant case, and that Tae Young-gu Terminal Co., Ltd. and Karopiura, Inc. would be determined as soon as possible, not the position that the jurisdiction was determined as the jurisdiction of the Siljin-si.

(6) The instant reclaimed land was created as part of the port development project, which develops the “original Pyeong Port” as a trade port managed by the State. The Pyeongtaek Port was the fishery harbor of Pyeongtaek-do fishermen before, but was almost lost the function as a fishery harbor due to the State’s harbor development project. On the other hand, at Sin Jin-si and ASEAN fishermen lost some fishing grounds, but it seems that the fishery may continue to exist.

(3) Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion that there is a defect in the balancing of interest in the instant decision is without merit.

6. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed as it is without merit, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing party including the part resulting from the participation in the lawsuit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.