[1] Restrictions on the interpretation and application of "a case where it is inevitable to cope with urgent administrative demand or to carry out a business which ends after a certain period of time, which is an element for the establishment of a temporary organization of the Korea-Japan under Article 6 (1) of the Regulations on Administrative Organizations and Standards of Quota of Local Governments

[2] The case denying the validity of a resolution of the local council on the whole of the proposed bill on the ground that the supplementary provision on the Han Time Period violates the upper law

[1] Article 102 (1) of the Local Autonomy Act and Article 6 (1) of the "Regulations on Administrative Organizations and Standards for Quota, etc. of Local Governments" following the delegation thereof is intended to strengthen autonomy and autonomy of local governments by removing unreasonable points that prevent effective and urgent administrative demands arising from a specific situation due to the light and uniformness in the organization of an administrative body. Thus, the meaning of cases where it is necessary to flexibly interpret and apply in consideration of the characteristics of the administrative demand of the local government in question in order to cope with temporary administrative demands which occur urgently, or to carry out projects which are terminated after a certain period of time. However, it is not possible to interpret and apply the "Regulations on Administrative Organizations, Standards for Quota, etc. of Local Governments" to be used as a means of expanding or expanding administrative organizations.

[2] The case denying the validity of the resolution of the local council as to the whole of the bill, on the ground that it is not a whole of the resolution of the local council but a part of the bill is illegal, since the division of the affairs of the local council, which is stipulated in the supplementary provisions concerning the one time period, shall not be considered as a business which terminates after the temporary administrative demand or a certain period of time.

[1] Article 102(1) of the former Local Autonomy Act (amended by Act No. 7410 of March 24, 2005); Article 6(1) of the Regulations on Administrative Organizations and Standards for the Fixed Number of Personnel of Local Governments / [2] Article 15 of the Local Autonomy Act; Article 6(1) of the Regulations on Administrative Organizations and Standards for the Fixed Number of Personnel of Local Governments

(Attorney Yu-won, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Young-gu Council of Korea

July 14, 2005

1. A decision made by the Defendant on March 24, 2005 on the amendment of the Ordinance for the Establishment of Administrative Organizations in Pyeongtaek-gun, Chang Chang-gun, has no effect.

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

1. Basic facts

The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the contents of evidence Nos. 1-1 through 4, evidence No. 2-1, evidence No. 2, evidence No. 3-2, evidence No. 4-1, and evidence No. 4-2.

A. On February 2, 2005, the head of Pyeongtaek-si submitted a draft of the amended Ordinance (hereinafter referred to as the "Ordinance of this case") to the Defendant from among the Ordinance on the Establishment of the Administrative Organizations in Bupyeong-gu, Seoul. On March 24, 2005, the Defendant passed a resolution on the Ordinance of this case and transferred it to the head of Pyeongtaek-gu.

B. On April 8, 2005, the Plaintiff ordered the request for reconsideration on the ground that Article 2 of the Addenda to the Ordinance of this case violates Article 6 (1), Article 10, and Article 10-2 of the "Regulations on Administrative Organizations, Standards for Quota, etc. of Local Governments" (hereinafter "Regulations on Administrative Organizations") but the head of Pyeongtaek-gu promulgated the Ordinance of this case on April 13, 2005 without the request for reconsideration.

C. According to Article 2 (1) of the Addenda to the Han-Time Ordinance, an industrial economic team, a social welfare team, and a water supply and sewerage team shall be established to efficiently cope with temporary administrative demands that occur urgently. According to paragraph (2), the division of duties of an industrial economic team shall be in charge of economic policy, local resources, business of support to enterprises, business of division of duties of social welfare teams, business of social welfare teams, business of social protection, livelihood support, business of women and youth policy, business of division of duties of water supply and sewerage, and business of division of duties of water supply and sewerage.

2. Whether Article 2 of the Addenda to the Ordinance of this case violates the Act

A. The main sentence of Article 15 of the Local Autonomy Act provides that "Local governments may enact municipal ordinances with regard to their affairs within the scope of statutes." Since "within the scope of statutes" refers to "within the scope of statutes", it shall be deemed that ordinances enacted by local governments are invalid if they violate the laws and regulations enacted by local governments.

B. Therefore, first, we examine whether Article 2 of the Addenda to the Ordinance of this case violates Article 6 (1) of the Administrative Organization Regulation.

Article 102 (1) of the Local Autonomy Act provides that "a City/Do shall have administrative organizations necessary for the allocation of administrative affairs of a local government, and a Si/Gun/autonomous Gu shall be prescribed by municipal ordinance of the local government concerned within the extent prescribed by Presidential Decree." The main sentence of Article 6 (1) of the Administrative Organization Regulation delegated by the above provision provides that "the head of a local government may establish and operate a temporary administrative organization where it is inevitable to cope with an urgent temporary administrative demand or to carry out a business which ends after the specified period," and the above provision provides that "the head of a local government may establish and operate a temporary administrative organization where it is inevitable to do so in order to cope with an urgent temporary administrative demand or to implement a business which ends after the specified period," so it is intended to strengthen the autonomy and autonomous ability of the local government concerned by removing unreasonable points that prevent effective measures from coping with the administrative demand occurring in a specific period due to the minority and simplification in the organization of an administrative organization. Therefore, it shall be interpreted or applied as a means of expansion or expansion of administrative organization.

As seen earlier, when considering the outline of the division of the administrative affairs of the Korea Industrial Economic Team to be established by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Ordinance of this case, it can be seen that the industrial economic team is an economic policy, local resources affairs, corporate support affairs, social welfare team's social protection affairs, living support affairs, women and youth policy affairs, water supply and sewerage affairs, and sewerage-related affairs. This division of affairs is an administrative demand that exists in Pyeongtaek-gun, a basic local government, but it is difficult to regard it as an urgent temporary administrative demand or a project that terminates after a certain period.

Therefore, Article 2 of the Addenda to the Ordinance of this case violates Article 102 of the Local Autonomy Act and the main sentence of Article 6 (1) of the Administrative Organization Regulation.

C. Even if Article 2 of the Addenda of the Ordinance of this case violates the superior law, the defendant defense that the resolution of this case is valid except for the part of the decision. Therefore, since the exclusion of part of the decision does not change the overall contents of the decision, it would infringe the local council's inherent authority, which is the decision-making authority, as a result, it would not infringe the overall contents of the decision, and the exclusion of part of the decision would be likely to change the overall contents of the decision differently from the original intent of the local council. In the case of a request for reconsideration, even though the objection pointed out in the request for reconsideration is about part of the decision, the whole decision becomes invalid and the request for reconsideration or reorganization for part of the decision is not allowed (Article 19 (3) of the Local Autonomy Act and Article 37 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act). In light of the above Article 19 (2) of the Local Autonomy Act and Article 37 (2) of the same Act, the above decision shall not be deemed to have been rejected in whole or in part of the decision if it is unlawful (see Supreme Court Decision 92Do316000, 100.

D. If so, without examining the plaintiff's other assertion, as long as Article 2 of the Addenda of the Ordinance of this case is unlawful, the resolution of the Ordinance of this case cannot be denied all its validity, and the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the exclusion of the validity of the resolution of the Ordinance of this case is justified.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted, and the costs of lawsuit are borne by the defendant who has lost, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)