2015Guhap262 Revocation of revocation of a disposition not to grant a representative of petitioners for residents' voting;

1. A;

2. B

3. C.

4. D;

Do Governor of Gyeongnam-do

July 7, 2015

August 11, 2015

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed. 2. Costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The disposition that the defendant issued to the plaintiffs on February 17, 2015 without issuing a certificate of representative of the claimant for residents' voting shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 2, 2010, the Defendant held a policy conference to expand eco-friendly free school meals to elementary, middle, and agricultural and fishing villages high schools in the Do with the Superintendent of the Office of Education. As a result, the Defendant agreed that the Gyeongnam-do will gradually expand the eligibility for free school meals by 2014 with the budget support, and that the Gyeongnam-do will share the budget at the rate of 30%, 30%, 30%, 30%, 40%, and 40% of the Si/Gun with respect to school meal support (food expenses).

B. As a result of the increase in the budget share for school meal support (food expenses) in the 2011 to 2013, the 34 billion won in the 2011, the 2012, and 40.3 billion won in the 2013, the Gyeongnam-do demanded the Office of Education to adjust the budget share ratio of the Do and Si/Gun from 70% to 50% in the 2013, on May 14, 2013.

C. Since then, on February 17, 2014, the Office of Education of Gyeongnam-do and Gyeongnam-do concluded an agreement with the following contents (hereinafter “instant agreement”) through consultation and opinion consultation on several occasions. According to the instant agreement, Gyeongnam-do shared the budget for school meal support.

1. School free meals (food costs) in 2014 shall be subsidized at the level of 2013, and the subsidy rate shall be 62.5% of local expenses and 37.5% of the Office of Education. 2. future school free meals shall be expanded gradually to the extent that the financial conditions permit. 3. School free food materials shall preferentially expand the supply of agricultural, fishery and livestock products in the Do.

D. On August 20, 2014, Gyeongnam-do had a consultation with the Office of Education for the purpose of adjusting the budget allocation rate for school meal support in 2015, but there was an objection to the budget allocation rate adjustment, and even though there was a number of subsequent consultation, it did not narrow the objection.

E. On October 2014, Gyeongnam-do tried to audit the actual status of the implementation of the budget for school meal support, but the Office of Education of the Gyeongnam-do refused it, the Defendant decided to suspend the budget allocation for school meal support in 2015. On the budget examination in 2015, the Gyeongnam-do Council decided to reduce 25.7 billion won from the expenditure budget and 38.6 billion won from the 2015 budget examination to appropriate it with the budget of the Gyeongnam-do Office of Education.

F. However, the Office of Education of Gyeongnam-do did not appropriate the expenditure budget deleted as above with its own budget, and due to the conflict of the budget allocation rate of the school meal support expense of the Office of Education of Gyeongnam-do and Gyeongnam-do, the school meal support expense was ultimately subsidized only for about 60,00 persons including children of low-income groups and students of special schools from April 1, 2015, and 220,000 students, who were previously eligible for support, were paid school meal support expense at their own expense.

G. Accordingly, on February 5, 2015, the remaining plaintiffs residing in E, Plaintiff A and Gyeong-do filed a claim with the Defendant pursuant to Article 10(1) of the Residents' Voting Act (hereinafter referred to as "the instant Residents' Voting Plan") for the purpose of the claim, and the purport of the claim was to support excellent food expenses since 2008 in accordance with the School Meals Support Ordinance, and to support school free food expenses from 2011. Based on this, the Gyeong-do residents' pro-con voting (if approved or not implemented, if approved or omitted) on the implementation of the instant agreement were to request the Defendant to issue a certificate of representative of the resident who requested the residents' voting.

H. However, on February 17, 2015, the defendant issued to the plaintiffs a disposition refusing to issue a certificate of representative of the claimant for the residents' voting (hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case") on the ground that "the proposal of this case is not a major decision of local government as provided by Article 7 (1) and (2) 3 of the Residents' Voting Act and Article 3 (4) of the Residents' Voting Ordinance, but it constitutes "matters concerning the budget of local governments" and thus is not subject to the residents' voting.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 20 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

1) The amount of the subsidy for school meal services in 2014 is KRW 124.3 billion. Among them, the ordinary south-do shared KRW 3.1 billion and the amount of the subsidy for school meal services reaches approximately KRW 2.80,000. However, according to the Defendant’s decision to suspend the allocation of the subsidy for school meal services, the amount of the subsidy for school meal services has decreased to approximately KRW 60,000,000. The issue of free school meal services is inappropriate that the Seoul Metropolitan Government’s major decision regarding the subsidy for school meal services is not “major decision of the local government” in 2011.

2) Article 7 (2) 3 of the Residents' Voting Act provides that "matters concerning the budget, which can not be referred to the residents' voting, refers to matters directly related to the budget itself, such as the compilation, resolution, execution, etc. of the budget bill, and matters concerning the formulation of new policies and policies that require the formulation of a new financial burden or budget compilation cannot be seen as those pertaining thereto. Thus, the residents' voting cannot be applied to the decision-making related to the budget, and the reasons for the disposition in this case is unjust in that policies concerning free school meals are matters concerning the budget.

B. Relevant legislation

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

If the proposal of this case is subject to the residents' voting prescribed by the Residents' Voting Act, and the plaintiffs file an application for issuance of a certificate of representative of a petitioner of the residents' voting in accordance with the requirements prescribed by Article 10 (1) of the Residents' Voting Act, the defendant shall issue it. Therefore, in light of the following circumstances, which can be recognized by considering the health, evidence and the overall purport of arguments as to whether the proposal of this case is subject to the residents' voting, the proposal of this case cannot be subject to the residents' voting on the basis of "matters concerning the contract or budget of a local government" as prescribed by Article 7 (2) 3 of the Residents' Voting Act. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion is justifiable and without merit

1) The instant proposal for residents’ voting is not a residents’ voting but a voting for the implementation of the instant agreement, which is a contract concluded between Gyeongnam-do and Gyeongnam-do Office of Education, rather than a residents’ voting for a phased free meal service and a complete free meal service policy, and it is not an opinion on whether to maintain school meal support policies or the scope of the subject of support. However, there was an opinion on the rate of budget sharing only between Gyeongnam-do and Gyeongnam-do Office of Education, and as a result, the agreement in this case led to the agreement. As such, it is difficult to view that the agreement in this case is a matter concerning the determination of a new financial burden or a major policy that requires budget compilation, and the agreement in this case determined the share ratio of school meal support budget between Gyeongnam-do and Gyeong-do Office of Education, which is directly related to

2) The Defendant and the Gyeongnam-do Council deleted the fund transferred to the Gyeongnam-do and Si/Gun as above, and compile and resolve the budget to fully bear the school meal support budget that the Gyeongnam-do and Si/Gun had already borne by the Gyeongnam-do Office of Education, not to modify the contents of the policies, such as reducing the scope of the school meal support policy, but merely changes the details of the budget allocation regarding the finalized policies.

3) Even if the proposal of this case is subject to the residents' voting, pursuant to Article 24(5) of the Residents' Voting Act, the head of the local government and the local council should take necessary administrative and financial measures as determined by the result of the residents' voting. Paragraph (1) of this case is related to the school meal support budget in 2014 and its implementation has already been completed, and Paragraph (2) and Paragraph (3) of this case of this case is an agreement of a declared meaning that the system of free school meal service should be expanded and developed as much as possible as possible so far as the financial conditions permit, and the food materials calculated in the Gyeongnam-do should be utilized as much as possible in the process. Therefore, it is difficult to conclude that the defendant or the Gyeongnam-do Council should agree to the implementation of the agreement in this case as a result of the residents' voting. Even if it is possible or specific, it is difficult to determine which measure is possible or specific.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge, the Senior Judge;

Judges Park Jong-do

Judges Park Jae-young