ScholarWorks@숙명여자대학교

초록

The Constitutional Court took a position to refrain from judging itself by dismissing the power dispute trial requirements inappropriate law in a dispute between Pyeongtaek City and Dangjin City over the authority of public waters reclamation through the 2015 Hunra 3 decision on July 16, 2020. This can be evaluated as a judgment that respects the legislator's right to form legislation in response to the purpose of the revision of Article 4 of the Local Autonomy Act and considers the issue of jurisdiction competition with the Supreme Court. In the event of an objection to the Minister of the Interior and Safety decision on the jurisdiction of public waters reclaimed lands pursuant to Article 4 (8) of the Local Autonomy Act, the Supreme Court will determine whether it violates the provisions of the Local Autonomy Act, that is, procedural defects. However, it is necessary to discuss the unconstitutionality of Article 4 (8) of the Local Autonomy Act on whether it is possible to exclude matters falling under the Constitutional Court's competent dispute trial as a Act. Through the 2015 Hunra 3 decision, the Constitutional Court took a position (concurring opinion) that matters that do not undermine the nature of the dispute can be defined as the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Dissenting Opinion of the same ruling stated that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court granted by the Local Autonomy Act does not exclude the Constitutional Court's right to judge disputes. As opposed to the 2015 Hunra 3 decision, this article also sought the significance of the Supreme Court's administrative litigation and other Constitutional Court's decision to control public waters reclamation sites and sought a solution in case of competition. If a state agency infringes on the autonomy of a local government in a landfill dispute related to various interests, it should leave a way to relieve it through a competent dispute trial. The adjudication on jurisdiction disputes has the authority to adjust the unconstitutionality and scope of interpretation of related laws through more active constitutional interpretation than the court, as it is possible to judge whether the decision of the Minister of Public Administration and Security is illegal. In addition, if the Supreme Court makes a legal judgment first, it is not impossible for the Constitutional Court to make another constitutional judgment. Contrary to the exclusion of court trials as prestigious provisions from constitutional petitions, dispositions subject to competent dispute are considered to mean a broad sense of public power disposition, including the existence and exercise of laws such as legislative acts, administrative legislation, and court trials and judicial administrative actions.

키워드