지방자치단체의 조례에 대한 적법성 평가— 「서울특별시 문화재 보호조례」의 문제점에 대한 분석 평가를 겸하여 —

About 20 years have passed since local autonomy was full-fledgedly launched in Korea. This system has remarkably advanced for this period, but harmful effects caused by reckless operation are also found here and there. At this moment, to realize resident near-contact local administration, the responsibility of municipalities is most urgently required above all. It is noticeable that, recently, local government regulations are actively discussed and judicial dispute cases are increasing surrounding legislation of regulations. As local government regulations are increasingly influencing the daily lives of residents, it is more desirable to review legality of regulation before legislation or during enforcement than studying legality only after decision of court. Such legality review system for local government regulations is advantageous as any one whose legality is judged problematic may be induced to be reasonably amended by the concerned local government for preventing disputes in advance. This paper analyzed assessment of legality of local government regulations in separate fields of discussion of regulation in relation to the constitution, reservation of regulation and law, superiority of regulation and law and limitations of regulation and law for seeking the directional nature of regulation assessment by local governments. Not only metropolitan local governments including Seoul Special Metropolitan City but also primary local governments legislate a wide range of regulations, but this paper reviews problems in the “Cultural Heritage Protection Regulations of Seoul Special Metropolitan City. Even though the “Intangible Cultural Heritage Preservation and Promotion Act“ was newly legislated in separation from the Cultural Heritage Protection Act in 2015, it was not reflected in the Cultural Heritage Protection Regulations of Seoul Special Metropolitan City. In addition, as the Cultural Heritage Protection Regulations of Seoul Special Metropolitan City does not prescribe authorization from the higher laws such as the Cultural Heritage Protection Act, the Intangible Cultural Heritage Preservation and Promotion Act, the Buried Cultural Heritage Protection and Inspection Act, the Act on Cultural Heritage Repair, Etc. or is in violation of the higher laws, it is urgently required to be properly amended.