매립지귀속 지방자치단체결정 취소소송과 대법원 판결에 대한 소고 - 대법원 2013.11.14. 선고 2010추73 판결

Surrounding the determination of the “council” on “public waters reclaimed,” the “local government” claimed to the dispute frequently, but “the Constitutional Court” has solved the matter with the “rights dispute judgment” since there is no “legal basis” of the “competent decision.” To solve this problem in the “legislative terms,” on April 1, 2009, the “Local Autonomy Law (Law No. 9577 Issue)” was amended as newly established provision as, depending on the deliberations and decisions by the “central municipalities of the Dispute Committee,” “Minister of Government Administration and Home Affairs,” determines the “local authorities” that associated with “landfill”, etc. and if you disagree with this decision, you may sue through the “Supreme Court.” “Supreme Court Ruling” on the case has the significance of “the first decisions of the judiciary” about “competent decision” of the “public waters reclaimed” based on the revised “Local Government Act,” and the achievement to determine the “maritime borders of the National Survey Institute,” which was conventionally considered as the only criterion in “Jurisdiction Decision,” is not only the standard in the “landfill jurisdiction decision.” Due to this decision, it is highly desirable that it became no longer possible to rule with the “decision competent landfill” on the basis of the “maritime boundary” which does not have “legal basis.” But the “evidence rule” on objective and reasonable “decision criteria” that “Local Government Central Dispute Resolution Committee” could be “conforming” in decision making process of the “landfill jurisdiction” is still deficiency states, and it is necessary to establish “complementary legislative” because the way to determine, while the process of asking the opinion of residents in “Municipality” related to “shared surface” come to life or the consent of “local councils” was omitted, the “jurisdiction” by “Minister of Government Administration and Home Affairs” is the infringement of the “local sovereignty” of “local government” as well as the infringement on the “autonomy” of residents. Besides, the fact that the “Supreme Court” is given the “jurisdiction of counter- litigation” for the determination of “Minister of Government Administration and Home Affairs” on the “public waters reclaimed” “municipalities belong” in the “Local Autonomy Law, Article 4, paragraph 8” could not be escaped from the criticism for “infringement of the rights of the Constitutional Court, the “Constitution, Article 111, paragraph 1.” In addition, presented a “reference direction” by “Supreme Court” for the "landfill competent decisions” in the trial of the case, “the judiciary” did present the specific “standard sentence” as well as did limit to “freedom of the formation of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs” on the “landfill competent decisions,” and it had deviated the limits of “passive national acts perform” that “Jurisdiction” is having. The revision of the “Local Government Act” is necessary to solve the “dispute” concerning by providing feedback of the “Municipality” related to “jurisdiction” and defining a “reference” to understand and cooperate between “local government,” according to the procedures and criteria as it defined in Laws.