Whether an amendment to the Ordinance for Establishment of Special Accounts for Parking Lots by a local government which substantially results in a change in the budget within the short period after the budget bill of the local government is finalized violates Articles 117(1), 118 of the Local Autonomy Act, Articles 5(1), and 30 of the Local Finance Act (affirmative)

Any opinion from the head of the Metropolitan City Council immediately after the establishment of the Gu budget in 1977, without seeking any opinion from the head of the Metropolitan City Council, and the amendment of the Gu Ordinance on the Establishment of Special Accounts for Parking Lots, which stipulates that the expenses for regulating illegal parking and stopping which have been disbursed from the previous special account for parking lots shall be disbursed from the general account to the extent of the general account, shall be deemed to have been actually modified in accordance with reasonable standards within the extent provided by the relevant Ordinance. In this case, there is no other material to deem that the pertinent Ordinance was implemented in accordance with reasonable standards, the pertinent Ordinance violates Article 118 of the Local Autonomy Act, Article 30 of the Local Finance Act, which provides for the right to compile budget of the head of the local government, and Article 30 of the Local Finance Act, and the receipt of fines for negligence due to the crackdown on illegal parking and stopping is also inconsistent with Article 117(1) of the Local Autonomy Act, which provides for the division of accounts,

Articles 117(1) and 118 of the Local Autonomy Act, Articles 5(1) and 30 of the Local Finance Act

[Plaintiff, Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

The head of Gwangju Metropolitan City Southern-gu

Gwangju Metropolitan City Southern-gu Council (Attorney Lee Dong-chul, Counsel for defendant)

June 24, 1997

A re-resolution on the draft of the amended Ordinance among the Ordinances for Establishment of Special Accounts for Parking Lots in Gwangju Metropolitan City, Nam-gu, Gwangju Metropolitan City, which was made by the defendant on March 21, 1997, shall be null and void. Litigation costs shall

1. The process of the re-resolution of this case

In full view of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4, the defendant, immediately after the budget of the Nam-gu Seoul Metropolitan City was established in 1997, passed a resolution on Dec. 28, 1996 on the draft of the amended Ordinance (hereinafter referred to as the "Ordinance of this case") among the old Ordinance of Establishment of Special Accounts for Parking Lots at the 6th regular session of Seoul Metropolitan City at the 20th regular session, and the plaintiff, on Jan. 22, 1997, demanded the defendant to re-resolution the Ordinance of this case to the defendant on Jan. 22, 1997. However, the defendant re-resolutiond the Ordinance of this case at the 25th regular session of the 197 extraordinary session at the 25th regular session. The Ordinance of this case revised the "revenue related to towing" of Article 2 (Revenue) as the "income related to illegal stopping and towing," and "other revenues related to towing and stopping" of Article 3 (3) (4) of the same Act as the "illegal and other expenses required for towing business."

2. Whether the Ordinance of this case violates the law

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff first asserts that the amendment of Article 3 subparagraph 3 of the Ordinance of this case is in violation of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes such as the Local Autonomy Act and the Local Finance Act, since the purport of the amendment is that the expenses for the regulation of illegal stopping, which was already disbursed from the previous special account for parking lots, should be disbursed from the general account. As the budget for the special account for parking lots was finalized in 1997, the defendant's re-resolution of the Ordinance of this case that was made with the revenues of the special account for illegal

B. Relevant statutes

Article 117(1) of the Local Autonomy Act, Article 5(1) of the Local Finance Act provides that accounts of local governments shall be classified into general accounts and special accounts. Article 117(2) of the Local Autonomy Act, Article 5(2) of the Local Finance Act provides that special accounts may be established by municipal ordinances only when it is necessary to operate a public enterprise or other specific business, or when it is necessary to account separately from general revenues and expenditures. Article 30(1) of the Local Finance Act provides that local governments shall calculate and appropriate expenses in their budget within the scope prescribed by statutes and municipal ordinances in accordance with reasonable standards. Article 123 of the Local Autonomy Act provides that local governments shall hear opinions from the head of the local government in advance when they intend to decide municipal ordinances or agenda items involving new financial burden, Article 118 of the Local Autonomy Act, Article 30 of the Local Finance Act provides that the right to compile budget, etc. of the head of the local government, and Article 21-2(1) of the Parking Lot Act provides that special accounts for parking lots of the local government.

C. Determination

In this case, there is no evidence to deem that the Ordinance of this case was made in accordance with reasonable standards within the scope prescribed by the Act and subordinate statutes, and there is a violation of Article 118 of the Local Autonomy Act, Article 30 of the Local Finance Act, and Article 30 of the Local Finance Act and Article 5 (1) of the Local Finance Act, which provide for the right to compile budget of the head of a local government, and the revenues of fines for negligence from the control of illegal stopping are inconsistent with the Act and subordinate statutes in that they are deleted from the expenditure budget without hearing any opinion from the plaintiff immediately after the previous budget was finalized in 197, and thus, they are inconsistent with Article 117 (1) of the Local Autonomy Act, which provides for the classification of accounts, and Article 5 (1) of the Local Finance Act, which provides for the right to compile budget of the head of a local government.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on this point is justified.

3. If so, the proposed ordinances of this case are invalid as a whole without requiring further examination as to whether the remaining provisions violate the laws and regulations. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)