지방자치단체 매립지 관할권 귀속에 관한 공법적 검토 ― 대법원 2021. 1. 14. 선고 2015추566 판결 등에 대한 비판적 검토를 중심으로 ―

Disputes between local governments frequently arose over decisions on jurisdiction over public water landfills, but as there was no legal basis for them, they were eventually resolved through a competence dispute adjudication by the Constitutional Court. In order to resolve this problem legislatively, the Local Autonomy Act was revised in 2009, and according to this, in the case of public water landfills, the Minister of the Interior and Safety shall appoint the local government to which the landfill sites belong, following deliberation and resolution by the Local Government Central Dispute Mediation Committee. If there is any objection to this decision, a lawsuit can be filed in the Supreme Court. However, in the Supreme Court ruling based on this, specific decision criteria were presented, saying that the jurisdictional decision of the Minister of Public Administration and Security has original effect in the case of reclaimed land because it is newly established land. However, this also contains various problems, leading to constant judicial disputes. The essence of local autonomy is to promote balanced national development based on the unique characteristics of each region. To this end, the Constitution guarantees local autonomy. In this respect, the spatial scope of local autonomy and the jurisdictional areas of local governments must be normatively confirmed and guaranteed. Currently, the jurisdictional decision for public water landfills is made by the decision of the Minister of Public Administration and Security and the control of the Supreme Court based on Article 5 of the Local Autonomy Act. However, such legislation cannot offset the normative meaning of local government districts under the Constitution, and this normative meaning acts as a limitation in the decision of the Minister of Public Administration and Security or the final judgment of the Supreme Court. In particular, in the case of large-scale national projects such as the Saemangeum development project, which involves building the world's longest seawall and reclaiming its interior, judicial disputes over individual landfill jurisdiction decisions can go beyond the development of local autonomy and hinder balanced regional development at the national level. There is a risk of damage. The current Local Autonomy Act does not provide the basis for objective and reasonable decision criteria that the Minister of Public Administration and Security can consider when deciding on jurisdiction over public waters landfills, and local government residents who have previously lived in connection with public waters Even the process of seeking opinions or obtaining consent or resolution from local councils is omitted. There is a risk that this may infringe on the residents' right to autonomy guaranteed under the Constitution, so legislative supplementation is needed. Moreover, if there is an objection to the decision of the Minister of Public Administration and Security, granting jurisdiction over this lawsuit to the Supreme Court may also lead to jurisdictional issues with the Constitutional Court. Therefore, there is a need to quickly revise the Local Autonomy Act to end the wasteful debate expected in the future. This can be said to be the practical realization of local autonomy guaranteed by the Constitution.