logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2016.12.29 2013추579
조례안재의결무효확인
Text

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The following facts can be acknowledged in light of the re-resolution of the Ordinance of this case and the statements in Gap Nos. 1, 2, and 3 as to the purport of the entire pleadings.

(1) On October 22, 2013, the Defendant passed a resolution on the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Ordinance on the Establishment and Operation of Parking Areas Exclusively for Pregnant Women (hereinafter “instant Ordinance”) proposed by its affiliated members, and transferred the Ordinance to the Plaintiff around that time. The Plaintiff demanded reconsideration from the Defendant on November 8, 2013 on the ground that the instant Ordinance violates the relevant statutes. However, the Defendant re-resolutioned the instant Ordinance on November 18, 2013.

(2) The Ordinance of this case provides that the head of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as the “head of the Gu”) shall establish a parking zone exclusively for pregnant women in the travel parking lot (referring to the parking zone preferentially used by women as provided for in Article 23 of the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Ordinance on the Installation and Management of Parking Lots) and the exclusive parking zone shall be at least 10 percent of the number of parking spaces in the travel parking lot, but at least one side shall be installed (Article 4). The head of the Gu shall issue a sign of pregnant women to pregnant women reported pursuant to Article 8 of the Mother and Child Health Act, and no one shall park in the exclusive parking zone for the motor vehicles without the sign of pregnant women, while the head of the Gu shall issue a sign of pregnant women to pregnant women reported pursuant to Article 8 of the Mother and Child Health Act.

(1) Article 6(1) and (3) of the Ordinance of this case imposes a duty to install a parking zone exclusively for pregnant or nursing women on a parking lot established and managed by the general residents, and limits the right to use a parking zone exclusively for pregnant or nursing women of the residents who are not issued with a sign of pregnant or nursing women.

arrow