In a case where a member of the Do Council, a resident Eul, etc. applied for the issuance of a certificate by the representative of the petitioners for the residents' voting but the Do governor did not require the residents' voting, the case affirming the disposition of rejection on the ground that the proposal for the residents' voting cannot be subject to the residents' voting on the grounds that it is not subject to the "matters concerning the contracts or budgets of local governments" as provided by Article 7 (2) 3 of the Residents' Voting Act.

In a case where a member of the Do Council, a resident Eul, etc. applied for the issuance of a certificate by the representative of the claimant for the residents' voting, but the proposal for the residents' voting was not subject to the residents' voting, the case affirming the disposition of refusal on the ground that the proposal for the residents' voting is a voting on the implementation of agreements entered into between the Do Office of Education and the Do Office of Education, not the residents' voting on the free meal service and the total free meal service policy, but on the implementation of contracts entered into between the Do Office of Education and the Do Office of Education, it is difficult to view that the agreement is a matter concerning new financial burden or the determination of major policies that require the formulation of a budget, and the agreement is determined by the sharing ratio of the budget for the support of school meal service between the Do Office of Education and the Do Office of Education on the basis that it is directly related to the budget, such as the compilation of the budget, and thus, it cannot be subject to the residents' voting.

Article 14 of the Local Autonomy Act, Article 7(1), 7(2)3, and 10(1) of the Residents' Voting Act

Plaintiff 1 and three others (Attorney Park Jae-hoon, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Do Governor (Attorney Lee Jong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

July 7, 2015

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The defendant's disposition not to issue a certificate of representative of petitioners to the plaintiffs on February 17, 2015 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 scope of school meal support from 201 to 2013, the budget share for school meal support in 201 to 18 billion won in 201, 34 billion won in 2012, and 40.3 billion won in 2013. On May 14, 2013, Gyeongnam-do demanded the Office of Education to adjust the budget share rate from 70% in Do and Si/Gun to 50% in 201.

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. Table 1. 2014 in the main sentence, school free meals (food expenses) in 2014 shall be subsidized at the level of 2013, and the subsidy rate shall be 62.5% in local expenses and 37.5% in the Office of Education. 2. future school free meals shall be gradually expanded to the extent that the financial conditions permit. 3. School meal 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 Gyeong-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 school meal support by the Office of Education of Gyeong-do and Gyeong-do, Gyeong-do, and Gyeong-do, and eventually, school meal support was provided only for about 60,00 students, including children of low-income groups and students of special schools from April 1, 2015, and 220,000 students who had previously been subject to support were paid school meal expense at their own expense.

G. Accordingly, on February 5, 2015, Plaintiff 1 and the rest of the Plaintiffs residing in the Gyeongnam-do, who are the causes of the council of the Gyeongnam-do, filed an application with the Defendant for the issuance of the certificate of the representative of the claimant for the Do residents on the basis of Article 10(1) of the Residents' Voting Act (hereinafter referred to as "the instant resident's voting proposal"). The purport of the application is as follows: "Gyeongnam-do has subsidized excellent food expenses since 2008 in accordance with the School Meals Support Ordinance, and has subsidized school free food expenses since 2011; on the basis of this, the application is filed with the Defendant for the issuance of the certificate of the representative of the claimant for the Do residents' voting (or objection if the agreement is not implemented) on the implementation of the instant agreement."

H. However, on February 17, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition to refuse to issue a certificate of representative of petitioners for residents' voting (hereinafter "the instant disposition") on the ground that "the instant proposal does not constitute "major decisions of local governments" as prescribed by Article 7 (1) of the Residents' Voting Act and Article 3 subparagraph 4 of the Residents' Voting Ordinance, but constitutes "matters concerning the budget of local governments" as prescribed by Article 7 (2) subparagraph 3 of the Residents' Voting Act.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 20 (including Serial number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

1) The scale of school meal support in 2014 is KRW 124.3 billion, among which those, the Gyeongnam-do shared KRW 3.1 billion, and those eligible for support reaches approximately KRW 2.80,000. However, according to the Defendant’s decision to suspend the Defendant’s budget share of school meal support, the target of school meal support has been reduced to approximately KRW 60,00,000. The issue of free school meal support has been an important matter to the extent that the Seoul Special Metropolitan City head resigns from his office in 2011, and thus, it is unreasonable to deem that the matter related to school meal support is not

2) Article 7(2)3 of the Residents' Voting Act provides that "matters concerning the budget of local governments" that cannot be referred to 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, it cannot be applied to residents' voting on policies that involve the budget, and it is difficult to propose policies that do not involve the budget, and the reasons for disposition in this case is unjust.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

The proposal of this case is subject to the residents' voting prescribed by the Residents' Voting Act, and the plaintiffs' application for the issuance of a certificate by the representative of petitioners for the residents' voting meeting the requirements prescribed by Article 10 (1) of the Residents' Voting Act shall be issued by the defendant. Therefore, in light of the following circumstances, which can be recognized in full view of whether the proposal of this case is subject to the residents' voting or not, the proposal of this case cannot be subject to the residents' voting on the "matters concerning the contracts or budgets of local governments" as prescribed by Article 7 (2) 3 of the Residents' Voting Act, and therefore, the disposition of this case is just and the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

1) The instant proposal for residents’ voting is not a residents’ voting but a voting on the implementation of the instant agreement, which is a contract concluded between the office of education of Gyeongnam-do and Gyeongnam-do, not a residents’ voting among the policy for free school meal and the total free school meal, and 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 only on the budget share ratio, 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 the new financial burden or the major policy that requires the compilation of budget. The agreement in this case determined the share ratio between Gyeongnam-do and Gyeongnam-do Office of Education concerning the school meal support budget, which is directly related to the budget itself, such as the compilation of the budget bill.

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, according 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. Article 2 and Paragraph (3) of the Agreement of this case provides that as long as the financial conditions permit, the system of free school meal service should be expanded and developed and the food materials calculated in the Gyeongnam-do should be utilized to the maximum extent possible. Thus, even if there was a conclusion that the voting result of the proposal of this case is consistent with the implementation of the agreement of this case, it is difficult to determine whether the defendant or the Gyeongnam-do Council is either impossible or specific to take necessary measures as a result of the residents' voting, or any measure is followed.

3. Conclusion

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

[Attachment] Relevant Statutes: omitted

Judges Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Judge)