[1] Whether the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor's finding a legitimate application for residents' voting on the scope of support for free school meal services and accepting and ordering such application constitutes an administrative disposition subject to appeal litigation (affirmative)

[2] Whether standing to sue the "disposition of acceptance and proposal of a petition for residents' voting on the scope of support for free school meals" is against the Seoul Metropolitan Government residents who have the right to vote (affirmative)

[3] Whether municipal ordinances and rules, such as municipal ordinances, are included in Article 7(2)1 of the Residents' Voting Act, which provides for matters that cannot be referred to residents' voting (negative)

[4] The case holding that in case where Gap et al. filed an application for suspension of execution with respect to the disposition of receiving and proposing a petition for a residents' voting on the scope of provision of free school meals in the Seoul Metropolitan City market, and where Gap et al. filed an application for suspension of execution, etc., the above residents' voting cannot be deemed as the subject of the lawsuit for confirmation of invalidity of the "Ordinance on the Support of Environment-Friendly Free School Meals, etc." pending in the Supreme Court

[5] The meaning of "budget matters" cited as one of the matters not to be referred to residents' voting under Article 7 (2) 3 of the Residents' Voting Act, and whether it constitutes a matter concerning the formulation of new financial burden or budget formulation (negative)

[6] The case dismissing the above application in consideration of Gap et al.'s possibility of winning the principal case lawsuit

[1] Acceptance and issuance of a petition for residents' voting on the scope of support for free school meal is an exercise of public authority by the head of Seoul Special Metropolitan City as a public authority by law enforcement on specific facts such as acceptance of residents' request for residents' voting as the subject of public authority, whether to conduct residents' voting, and decision of time, and an act that affects residents' rights and obligations, and thus constitutes an administrative disposition subject

[2] Matters subject to the residents' voting have a significant impact on the residents' interest, and the Residents' Voting Act provides the residents with an opportunity to express their opinions and allow them to participate directly in the decision-making on important matters that have a significant impact on the residents' interest, which may be seen as the purpose of protecting their individual and specific interests by overcoming the limitation of representative democracy that can be implemented differently from the residents' will and by guaranteeing individual residents' participation in the decision-making of policies of local governments. The direct participation of the residents guaranteed by the Residents' Voting Act includes preventing the residents from illegally implementing the residents' voting if they oppose the implementation of the residents' voting. If such persons do not recognize the standing to sue, it is reasonable to view that the Seoul Metropolitan Government residents entitled to the residents' voting has standing to sue "the acceptance and proposal of the request for the residents' voting on the scope of support of free meal service" as an appeal litigation.

[3] In light of the fact that the Residents' Voting Act was enacted to ensure the direct participation of the residents in the decision-making of a local government, the "Acts and subordinate statutes" under Article 7 (2) 1 of the Residents' Voting Act refer to Acts and subordinate statutes that cannot change the authority of the local government, i.e., the statutes that set the limits of local autonomy, i.e., ordinances that may change the authority of the local government, and municipal ordinances and rules, such as municipal ordinances that may change the authority of the local government, shall not be deemed to be included in the "Acts and subordinate statutes" under this context. This is because, if municipal ordinances and rules, such as municipal ordinances, are interpreted to be included in this context, the purpose of adopting the Residents' Voting Act by being unable to implement the Residents' Voting even though they correspond to

[4] Where Gap et al. filed an application for suspension of execution, etc. of the residents' voting as to the scope of provision of provision of provision of provision of provision of provision of provision of free school meals, and Gap et al. are subject to "judicial matters" as provided by Article 7 (2) 1 of the Residents' Voting Act, the case holding that Gap et al.'s lawsuit for confirmation of invalidity of the re-resolution of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on Provision of Free school Meals continued to the Supreme Court is against the relevant laws and regulations, and it is also seeking confirmation of invalidity of the re-resolution of the re-resolution of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on Provision of Environment-Friendly School Meals, such as whether the provision of provision of provision of provision of free school meals violates the relevant laws and regulations, and whether the scope of provision of provision of free school meals is infringed upon the market power, and thus it is difficult to view that the Supreme Court's decision is unlawful in the lawsuit for confirmation of invalidity of the re-resolution of provision of free school meals, and it does not coincide with the legislative intent of the Ordinance.

[5] Article 7 (2) 3 of the Residents' Voting Act refers to the matters directly related to the budget (e.g., allocation, resolution, and execution of the budget for the implementation of the finalized policy) under Articles 127 through 131 of the Local Autonomy Act, such as the formulation, resolution, execution, etc. of the budget bill, which cannot be referred to as one of the matters that cannot be referred to the residents' voting, and matters concerning the formulation of new financial burden or budget compilation cannot be deemed to constitute "matters concerning the budget" under the above provision.

[6] The case dismissing the above application in light of the following: (a) as to the disposition of receiving and proposing the petition for a resident's voting on the scope of provision of free school meals in the Seoul Metropolitan City market; and (b) as to the case where Gap et al. filed an application for suspending the execution thereof, it is necessary to increase social confusion and prevent damage to the budget waste that may arise from the execution of the resident's voting; and (c) as to the local government's policies that have a significant impact on residents, it is necessary to resolve social conflicts by promptly and promptly confirming the residents' intent through the resident's voting; and (d) it is difficult to accept the above resident's assertion that the above resident's voting is not subject to the resident's voting under the Residents' Voting Act

[1] Article 2 (1) 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [3] Article 7 (2) 1 of the Residents' Voting Act / [4] Article 7 (2) 1 of the Residents' Voting Act / [5] Article 7 (2) 3 of the Residents' Voting Act / [6] Article 23 (2) and (3) of the Administrative Litigation Act

Applicant 1 and 10 others (Law Firm Insane et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor (Law Firm Gyeong-woo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The motion of this case is dismissed.

The primary application: The disposition of the respondent's acceptance and proposal of the request for the residents' voting on the residents' voting as stated in attached Form 2 shall be suspended until the judgment of the court of this Court is rendered to nullify the request for residents' voting, such as a disposition to accept the request for residents' voting.

Preliminary application: The acceptance and recommendation of a respondent's request for residents' voting on the residents' voting mentioned in attached Form 2 shall be suspended by the time of rendering a judgment in the case of nullification of the claim for residents' voting, such as a disposition to accept and make a request for residents' voting.

1. Basic facts

The record reveals the following facts.

A. The applicants are all citizens of Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

B. At the 227th regular meeting on December 1, 2010, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Council passed a resolution on the “Ordinance on the Support of Environment-Friendly Free School Meal Service, etc.” and transferred it to the respondent. On December 21, 2010, the respondent demanded reconsideration from the Seoul Special Metropolitan Council on the grounds that the above Ordinance violates the law and regulations, but the Seoul Special Metropolitan Council re-resolutions the Ordinance as the original bill (hereinafter “instant re-resolution”) at the 228 extraordinary meeting of the same month, and then the chairman of the Seoul Special Metropolitan Council promulgated it on January 6, 2011 (hereinafter “instant Ordinance”).

C. On January 10, 2011, the respondent proposed that the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Council should hold a citizen's vote directly with respect to the provision of the full free school meal service. The Seoul Special Metropolitan City Council announced that the total number of petitioners for the resident's voting is 8,360,083 and that the number of residents aged 19 years or older who shall be signed for the petition for the resident's voting is 418,005.

In addition, on January 18, 201, the respondent filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the re-resolution of the Ordinance (hereinafter “instant lawsuit”) with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Council as Supreme Court Decision 2011No. 25 Decided January 18, 2011, alleging that the Ordinance violated the authority of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City superintendent of education, violated the School Meals Act as to apportionment of expenses, and violated the contents of the Ordinance, such as infringement of the discretion of the respondent on the subsidization of meal expenses, and thus, it is still underway.

D. Meanwhile, on the other hand, on January 31, 201, the National Campaign Headquarters for the Welfare Pulism de pulism requested that it be carried out gradually free school meals from students who have difficulty in circumstances as the claimant representative, and applied for issuance of a certificate of representative of the applicant, subject to a request for residents' voting against the full-time free school meal program (hereinafter "request for residents' voting of this case").

On February 7, 2011, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Deliberation Committee on Residents' Voting (hereinafter "Deliberation Committee") held a second meeting on February 7, 201 and issued a certificate of representative of the claimant while all 11 members are present, but a resolution was made to request the applicant to specify the subject, purpose, and reason of the request by delivering the opinions discussed at the Deliberation Committee to the applicant.

E. On February 9, 2011, the respondent issued a certificate of representative of the claimant, and publicly announced the subject of the claim, representative of the claimant, purport of the claim, grounds for the claim, etc. pursuant to Article 10(2) of the Residents' Voting Act, and the main contents thereof are as follows.

The list (1) subject to a claim: (2) the applicant’s representative who conducts a residents’ voting against the front free meal service: Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2 (3) the front free meal service that provides meals to all students, regardless of income, is a typical tax meal service that disregards the economic logic. Since all the costs for meal service are incurred from the national tax, it shall be suspended. (4) The reasons for the claim - the full free meal service will bring about a enormous financial burden to the Office of Education, the Office of Education, and the autonomous Gu at the beginning of once every year. - Accordingly, it is difficult to provide meals free of charge and reduces the financial burden by providing progressive free meal service to all students, and shall be created into a healthy society that does not meet the obligations of this country.

F. On February 11, 2011, the Claimant’s representative and a total of 42,295 clients delegated the right to request signatures from them began to obtain the residents’ signature, and the Respondent’s signature was submitted to the Respondent on June 16, 201, to the Respondent. The top of the Claimant’s signature of the Claimant’s signature includes the following:

본문내 포함된 표 논란 많은 무상급식!!! 단계적으로 실시할 것인지? 전면적으로 무차별 실시할 것인지? 서울시민 여러분께서 주민투표로 결정해 주세요! 1) 소득 하위 50% 학생을 대상으로 2014년까지 단계적으로 실시하는 안과 2) 소득 구분 없이 모든 학생을 대상으로 초등학교(2011년), 중학교(2012년)에서 전면적으로 실시하는 안, 둘 가운데 어느 방안이 더 합리적이고 세금폭탄 없이 평탄하게 실시할 수 있는 방안인지에 대해, 서울 시민 여러분의 현명한 판단을, 주민투표로 결정하고자 합니다. 주민투표실시를 위한 서명에 동참해 주시기를 바랍니다.

G. On June 17, 2011, the respondent published a petition for residents' voting on June 17, 201 pursuant to Article 12(3) of the Residents' Voting Act, and the main contents thereof are as follows:

(1) A list (1) in the main text: A list (2) subject to the residents' voting that selects one of the policies on free school meals and total free school meals - The purpose of and reasons for the residents' voting that selects one of the policies on free school meals - (2) intent of the residents' voting that selects one of the policies on free school meals - The Government and the Office of Education shall provide the students of the lower income level 50 percent step-by step-by step-by step-by year 2014, and 2) intent to make a decision by asking the opinions of the residents of Seoul Special Metropolitan City as a residents' voting where it is desirable and reasonable to provide the whole free school meals for all students without distinction of income. - regardless of income, all students of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City and the Office of Education and the Office of Education should not be able to efficiently operate the entire free school meals and ensure sustainable welfare. In addition, it violates the basic concept of welfare that solves the difference in quality of life due to preferential support from the disadvantaged group, and by providing them with phased meals from the public institution to 9: 10:0, 201:70,20,20 and

H. From June 27, 2011 to July 6, 2011, the respondent had public officials under its jurisdiction conduct verification of 815,817 signatures that have been actually signed and confirmed, using the methods of examination of bills, computer input, and inquiry, and had them conduct verification of 548,342 cases (67.2%) valid signatures and process 267,475 cases (32.8%) invalid.

I. Meanwhile, from July 4, 201 to July 10, 2011, the perusal period for the petitioner’s signature book, the respondent kept a copy of the signature book at the Seoul Office and the 25 autonomous Gu civil petition offices, and made it possible for the petitioner to peruse and raise an objection against the signature. As a result, the total of 1,420 residents perused it, and the 145,208 petition for objection was received.

(j) From July 11, 201 to July 14, 2011, the respondent verified 94,930 signatures, excluding those invalid from the primary verification work, excluding those signed in duplicate with 50,278 items, and filed an objection, and 39,153 items were not accepted, and 55,77 items were not accepted.

(k) On July 15, 201, the instant deliberation council held three meetings among the 110 members among the 111 members on July 15, 201, and passed a resolution on the following: (i) the representative of the claimant was more concrete in the process of deliberation, and the subject of the request is not changed; (ii) the form of the petitioner’s signature submitted by the representative of the claimant is likely to be invalid; and (iii) the signature on which the objection was raised is to be verified by the method of directly verifying the signature book for each member on which the objection was not raised.

(l) On July 18, 201, the instant deliberation council held the fourth meeting during the attendance of all the members, and arbitrarily extracted more than 100 signatures per member on the non-acceptance of the objection, and confirmed the same, and made a decision that the result of the verification of objection by Seoul Metropolitan Government is adequate.

(m) On July 19, 201, the Council of this case held the fifth meeting during the attendance of all the Respondents to re-examine 750 cases among the signatures confirmed as valid, but confirmed that only 8 cases, 1%, are null and void, and the signature of 512,250 persons is valid, and this exceeds 418,005 persons, which are the requirements for filing a request for residents' voting, and decided that the request for residents' voting of this case satisfies the requirements for filing a request for residents' voting under Article 9(2) of the Residents' Voting Act.

(n) On July 26, 201, pursuant to Article 13(1) of the Residents’ Voting Act, the respondent recognized that the petition for the instant resident’s voting is lawful, and published a summary of the resident’s voting, and the main contents are as follows.

The subject of the request for a vote contained in the main text: The purpose of the request for a residents' voting which selects one of the policy for free school meals and the total free school meal of the Seoul Metropolitan Government: ① through the budgetary support of local governments and the Office of Education, it is desirable and reasonable to consider the opinions of the residents of Seoul Metropolitan Government as residents' voting to determine how to provide the free school meals step by step by 2014 for all students of income low-income 50%, and ② to provide all students of elementary schools (2011) and middle schools (2012) without income classification.

E. On August 1, 2011, the respondent added the phrase “the scope of support for free school meals” to the residents’ voting day on August 24, 2011, and the proposal for the residents’ voting shall be based on the existing voting proposal, and the phrase “the scope of support for free school meals” was publicly announced that the voting zone should be discharged from Seoul Special Metropolitan City and proposed the residents’ voting.

2. Determination on each issue

A. As to the legitimacy of a lawsuit on the merits

Applicant 1. H. The part that the respondent of the above 1.1. H. regarded as the acceptance of the petition for the resident's voting that the petition for the resident's voting of this case was lawful, and the petition is the disposition of acceptance and proposal for the resident's voting of this case (hereinafter "disposition of this case") in addition to the proposal for the resident's voting of this 1.o. of this case, the petition is seeking suspension of its validity or suspension of its execution. Thus, this study also examines the

(1) Disposition of this case

An administrative disposition, which is the object of an appeal litigation, means a law enforcement with respect to a specific fact by an administrative agency as the public authority, which directly affects the rights and duties of the people. Moreover, in the election procedure related to the State or a local government (or voting), a lawsuit against each individual act of an election management agency prior to the termination of an election is not permissible. Thus, even if there is an individual act of an election management agency prior to the completion of an election, it can only be claimed as a corrective action (or voting invalidation lawsuit) after the completion of the election, and in principle, it

(1) If the head of a local government examines a request for residents' voting pursuant to Article 9 (2) of the Residents' Voting Act and submits a copy of a petition for residents' voting to the extent that such request meets the requirements of residents' voting (Article 12 (3) through (6) of the Residents' Voting Act) and then decides whether to accept a request for residents' voting pursuant to Article 12 (2) of the Residents' Voting Act (Article 12 (2) of the Residents' Voting Act, the head of a local government is entitled to review whether such request for residents' voting is legitimate and not, and if such request for residents' voting is deemed lawful and unreasonable, he/she deems that such request for residents' voting has no authority to review whether such request for residents' voting is legitimate and that it is not subject to the procedures of residents' voting (Article 13 (1) of the Residents' Voting Act).

Do Governor standing to sue

In a case where a third party, who is not the direct counter party of an administrative disposition, is in violation of the legal interest protected by the law due to the administrative disposition, he shall be entitled to obtain the decision of propriety by filing an administrative litigation seeking the confirmation of invalidity of the disposition. The legal interest refers to the case where there are individual, direct, and specific interests protected by the relevant laws and regulations, and in a case where there are general, indirect, and abstract interests common to the general public as a result of the protection of public interest, there is no legal interest protected by the law (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2006Du330, Mar. 16, 2006).

Article 14 of the Local Autonomy Act provides that the head of a local government may put a major decision-making of a local government which causes excessive burden to residents or has a significant impact on them, and Article 7 of the Local referendum Act provides that the subject of the local government's decision-making which causes excessive burden to residents or has a significant impact on the residents. Thus, the subject of the local government's decision-making is that the subject of the local referendum has a significant impact on the residents' interests. 2) The Local referendum Act does not provide the procedure to protect the public interest intended to enhance democracy or accountability of the local government administration or does not seem to be just to allow the residents to participate in the local referendum against the purpose of protecting the public interest. However, it seems that it is reasonable to allow the residents to directly participate in the decision-making of the important matters that have a significant impact on the interests of the residents, so that it is difficult to admit that the residents are entitled to standing to sue of the Seoul Metropolitan Government without consideration by means of overcoming the limit of representative democracy which may be implemented differently from the residents' will and guarantee individual residents' right to sue of this case.

(b) Whether residents are eligible for residents' voting;

Article 7 (2) of the Residents' Voting Act provides that matters that cannot be referred to residents' voting shall be referred to the residents' voting in each subparagraph. The issue in this case is whether it violates the Acts and subordinate statutes of subparagraph 1, is judged, and whether it constitutes matters concerning the budget of local governments of subparagraph 3

(i)any violation of the statute;

The petitioners asserts that the proposal of this case is in violation of the Ordinance of this case already resolved and the Ordinance is also a statute, and therefore, it is against the law.

In light of the fact that the Residents' Voting Act was enacted to guarantee the direct participation of the residents in the decision-making of local governments, the term "law" under the above provision means the law that does not change the authority of the local government, i.e., the statutes that set the limits of local autonomy, i.e., the ordinances that may change the authority of the local government, and the same as those of local statutes, such as ordinances that can change the authority of the local

If municipal ordinances and rules, such as municipal ordinances, are interpreted as also included therein, it would be difficult to implement the residents' voting even though they fall under the actual major decision-making of local governments when local governments are implemented in the form of "Municipal Ordinance" which is resolved by the local council (in the case of actual major policies, many parts are enacted in the form of municipal ordinances and rules such as these ordinances).

Therefore, it is difficult to accept the applicant's argument that the "Acts" under Article 7 (2) 1 of the Residents' Voting Act includes municipal ordinances such as municipal ordinances enacted by local governments.

(2) A pending trial

The petitioner asserts that the residents' voting of this case is subject to the provisions of the Ordinance of this case, and thus, it constitutes a matter under trial as to the lawsuit of this case seeking confirmation of invalidity of the re-resolution of the Ordinance of this case.

According to the facts found above, the following circumstances, i.e., ① the litigation of this case is seeking confirmation of invalidity of the re-resolution of this case by disputing the illegality of the ordinance of this case, such as whether the relevant ordinances violate the relevant laws and regulations, and whether the market power has been infringed, whereas the residents' voting of this case is intended to make a policy decision by asking the residents' intent as to whether to provide a full-time free school meal service, ② the Supreme Court's decision is not illegal in the related litigation of this case, ② the policy of this case as prescribed by the ordinance of this case cannot be deemed as being consistent with the residents' intent, and even if a proposal is adopted as a result of the residents' voting, it does not affect the respondent and the Seoul Metropolitan Council's decision to take necessary administrative and financial measures as such. Thus, it is difficult to see that the residents' voting of this case is subject to the matters related to the lawsuit of this case currently pending trial, and therefore, it is difficult to see that this part of the applicants' assertion has merit.

(3) Matters concerning budgets;

The petitioner asserts that the proposal of this case is about the budget, so it cannot be subject to the residents' voting.

Article 7 (2) 3 of the Residents' Voting Act provides that "matters concerning the budget, accounts, contracts, and property management of local governments" as one of the matters not to be referred to the residents' voting. Here, "matters concerning the budget" refers to matters directly related to the budget itself, such as the compilation, resolution, execution, etc. of the budget bill referred to in Articles 127 through 131 of the Local Autonomy Act (e.g., matters such as the allocation, resolution, and execution of the budget for the implementation of the finalized policy). The matters concerning the formulation of new financial burden or budget compilation need not be deemed to constitute "matters concerning the budget" as referred to in the above provision (where the "matters concerning the budget" referred to in the above provision means all policy-making decisions involving the budget, it is difficult to find any policy irrelevant to the actual financial burden or budget, and the purpose of adopting the residents' voting system is to be significantly damaged).

Therefore, it is difficult to see that the applicant's above assertion is well-grounded.

(c) Whether it is unlawful in the process of requesting signatures and signatures;

(1) Whether there is a problem in the voting proposal itself or any change thereof

(A) First, unlike the case of asking for the pros and cons of a certain policy, the applicants asserts that there is a possibility of distortion of residents' intention in that they are forced to choose two choice in support of the third proposal that does not support one of the two proposals, which presented two proposals as seen in the above 1. H. paragraph, and that one of the two proposals is forced.

Article 15 of the Residents' Voting Act, which provides for the form of the residents' voting, provides that the residents' voting shall be carried out in the form of a declaration of consent or opposition to a specific matter or of selecting one of two or more matters. Thus, the proposal of this case cannot be deemed unlawful on the ground that it is not the form of asking for the pros and cons for a specific policy, but rather the form of selecting one of two or more eses, and it cannot be said that the form of selecting one of two es is smaller than the form of selecting one of three or more eses, or that there is a high possibility of distorted the purport of the residents (in the absence of one of two es, it may be expressed in the way of supporting a proposal more consistent with the purport of the presented, or rejecting the voting itself, and even in the case of selecting one or more eses of two eses, the above problem may still be raised). Thus, this part of the applicants' proposal of this case cannot be viewed as unlawful on the ground that there is no reason to assert this part of this case's disposition.

(B) In addition, the applicants asserts that the voting contents applied for at the time of filing an application for issuance of a certificate of representative of petitioners and the voting papers published by the respondent are different, and thus, the instant disposition is unlawful.

In a series of procedures until the proposal of the residents' voting is made, the subject or purport of a request for the residents' voting, the main place where the reasons are required to be stated is the case where the representative of petitioners for the residents' voting applies for the issuance of a certificate of representative of petitioners (Article 10(1) of the Residents' Voting Act), the signature book of petitioners (Article 12 of the Residents' Voting Act, Article 9 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on Residents' Voting), and Article 13 of the Residents' Voting Act (Article 13 of the Residents' Voting Act). Among them, it appears that the purpose of making the reasons for requesting the residents' voting clearly state the purpose of requesting the residents' voting and allowing them to conduct the activities to request signatures of such contents in the future. On the other hand, it is for the residents on the petition book to clearly understand what the objects of request for the residents' voting are being signed on the petition book, and the proposal publicly announced at the time of proposal is actually subject to the residents' voting and its purport should be stated in the petition register that it is not distorted.

However, the following circumstances revealed in the above facts, i.e., ① the statement stating the purport that the request for the voting of this case is made in order to oppose the full free school meal service. The proposal of this case added the phrase "in addition to the scope of support for free school meal service" to clarify what is the object of the residents' voting, since the subject of the residents' voting of this case is the same, the above two can be deemed identical. ② At the time of applying for the issuance of a certificate of representative of petitioners and the publication of the above facts, the full free school meal service is a typical tax meal that disregards economic logic, so it is not consistent with the purport or proposal of the residents' voting, but it is sufficiently stated in the petition list that the purport and purpose of the request should be stated that the residents' voting should be carried out gradually against the residents' voting of this case, and the purport and purpose of the request should be changed to the purport of the purport of the proposal of this case and its purport should be stated in the petition list.

Therefore, the applicant's assertion related to the identity of the voting bill is without merit.

(2) The form of the signature book and whether the signature is void

In order to obtain a signature for the request for the residents' voting, the applicants have divided the petitioner's signature into the same Dong by autonomous Gu as prescribed by the Ordinance of the residents' voting of this case, and divided the petitioner's signature into several signatures into the signature paper of the head of the Gu, and made it possible to forge the signature and make a proxy signature by others by using only one signature paper of the head of the Gu, and further, the signature book should have been distinguished by the person who has received the request for the signature, and should have been clearly stated on the sign by distinguishing the person who has received the request for the signature, but it is impossible to confirm whether each signature was received by the person who has the legitimate authority to request the signature because it is impossible to identify the person who has received the request for the signature, and therefore the signature and the signature stated therein are all invalid.

First of all, Article 12 (2) 7 of the Residents' Voting Act provides that a signature in violation of the method and procedure prescribed by the ordinance of the local government shall be null and void by delegation of this Act, and Article 8 (2) of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Residents' Voting Ordinance is divided into a Dong for each autonomous Gu (attached Form 1), and the petitioner's signature is jointly signed (attached Form 1).

As seen earlier, unlike the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on Residents' Voting (attached Form 1), it is true that the signature book of this case was not classified by autonomous Gu as Dong, and that the signature book was used in the form of piece which is not in the form of joint signature. However, the provision of the form of signature book as above is that the representative of the claimant or the principal of the claimant requests the signature to the residents as prescribed in Article 6 (Request for Signature) of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on Residents' Voting or Article 8 (1) that provides that the matters to be entered by the residents who want to sign on the petition book may be entered in the petition book, or that it is difficult for the residents to use the signature in the form of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on Residents' Voting to confirm the authenticity of the resident's signature or that the resident's signature was signed on the petition book rather than directly related to the signature of the applicant on the petition book, and it is difficult for the applicants to use the signature in the form of signature and the autonomous Gu Ordinance on the petition book separately and later, it is difficult to use the signature in the form and autonomous Gu.

Therefore, it is difficult to see that the applicant's assertion on this part is well-grounded.

(3) Whether public officials participate in the activities requesting signatures, and whether they are represented by proxy signature or identity theft

Although the petitioners asserted that the National Assembly members or public officials belonging to Hanna City were involved directly or indirectly in the activities of soliciting signatures, or that collective proxy signature and identity theft were made on the signatures of the residents of this case, it is insufficient to recognize that National Assembly members or public officials who are currently unable to make a request for signature only by the supporting materials submitted by the applicants have participated in such activities, and that collective proxy signature or identity theft was made on the signatures of the residents of this case, and there is no other supporting materials to deem otherwise.

(4) Whether a residents' voting deliberation committee is erroneous

In light of the above facts, the deliberation council of this case seems to have faithfully deliberated on the request for voting of this case, and it does not seem that the deliberation council of this case did not have deliberated insufficiently.

(5) the total number of effective signatures;

As seen earlier, in relation to the examination of the petitioner signature book of this case, the respondent conducted a verification by means of the land examination, computer input, and inquiry mobilized by public officials, conducted a verification by receiving residents' reading and raising objections, and finally, as a result of a re-examination of some of the signatures identified as valid at the Council of this case, the signature of 512,250 shall be confirmed to be valid, and the signature of 512,250 shall be confirmed to be invalid. In light of the fact that some invalid signatures in the signature confirmed as valid as above may be included in the signature confirmed as valid, it is difficult to view that the total number of valid signatures does not meet the requirements of Article 9(2) of the Residents' Voting Act.

3. Whether to suspend the execution.

(a) the subject of consideration;

The Administrative Litigation Act provides that the suspension of execution may be decided when it is deemed urgently necessary to prevent irrecoverable damage caused by a disposition, etc., execution or the continuation of procedure, etc. in cases where a revocation lawsuit is instituted, and that suspension of execution may not be permitted when it is likely to seriously affect public welfare (see Article 23(2) and (3) of the Administrative Litigation Act). Here, whether there is “emergency necessity to prevent irrecoverable damage” should be determined specifically and individually by comprehensively taking into account the nature, form, and content of the disposition, the nature, content and degree of the damage inflicted by the other party to the disposition, the method of restitution and monetary compensation, the degree of success in the main claim as well as the degree of difficulty in the main claim. Whether there is a significant impact on public welfare should not be determined by absolute standards, but by comparing and comparing the damage that is difficult to recover by the applicant and the public welfare both, and whether it is necessary to protect the latter even if an electronic sacrifice is made.

However, in light of the fact that the application for the suspension of execution of this case is raised by the residents opposing the execution of the residents' voting under the Residents' Voting Act, it is necessary to prevent social confusion in the decision-making of local governments that may arise due to the execution of the residents' voting that may not be implemented and the loss of the budget waste caused by the implementation of the residents' voting (it does not take into account only the disadvantage incurred to the applicants as alleged by the respondent) and the residents as well as to compare and compare the aspect that it is necessary to resolve social conflicts by promptly determining the residents' genuine will about the policies of local governments that have a significant impact on the residents by promptly ascertaining the residents' method of the residents' voting, but it shall be determined in consideration of the possibility of winning the lawsuit on the merits.

B. In the instant case

With respect to the timing and scope of implementation of free school meals, which are the subject of the instant residents' voting, there have been many controversy in the previous Seoul Special Metropolitan City residents, other local governments, and the burden of residents according to the implementation is also a lot of. Therefore, it is difficult to deny that it is necessary to resolve social conflicts by confirming the genuine intent of citizens of Seoul Special Metropolitan City through the implementation of the residents' voting. On the other hand, if the instant residents' voting is conducted even though it is not conducted due to the defect of the disposition of this case, it may increase confusion in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City's policy decision-making related to the implementation of free school meals and waste a lot of budget.

On the other hand, as seen earlier, a lawsuit seeking the invalidation or revocation of the disposition of this case, which is the main case of this case, is likely to be recognized as ① its disposition and the plaintiff's standing to sue, but ② it seems difficult to accept the applicant's argument that the proposal of this case is not subject to the residents' voting, ③ it is difficult to see that there is any problem in the proposal itself or its modification, ③ it is difficult to see that the form of the signature book itself or its modification is not used, but it is difficult to see that the signatures of the residents on the book of this case are null and void, and ④ it is difficult to recognize the applicant's assertion on the involvement of public officials, etc., proxy signature or signature, and defect of the Council's deliberation, etc. (the same shall apply in light of the methods of verifying and examining the signature of this case, the total number of valid signatures, etc.).

C. Sub-decision

In light of the above legal principles in light of the above various circumstances, it is reasonable that the applicant's application for the suspension of execution of this case is rejected.

4. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the instant application is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment 1] List of Applicants and List of Applicants: omitted

[Attachment 2] Indication of Residents' Voting: omitted

Judges Hah Jong-hee (Presiding Judge)