지방자치법상 권한분배원칙의 체계적 해석 기준 - 대법원 판례의 비판적 검토를 중심으로 -

The current Local Autonomy Act is designed to maintain mutual checks and balances between the executive and decision-making bodies of local governments by adopting a separate institutional structure. In other words, the Act grants independent authority, including the right to check each other's institutions, to the heads of local governments and local councils, and through this, checks and balances are established between the internal agencies of local governments, similar to the principle of separation of powers in the Constitution. This is called the principle of separation of authority under the Local Autonomy Act. This principle of separation of authority is also an important review standard when the Supreme Court determines whether local government ordinances are illegal. However, it is difficult to determine which cases violate the purpose of separation and distribution of authority under the Local Autonomy Act. This is because, despite the fact that a full-fledged local autonomy system has been implemented and is becoming established, the Supreme Court has failed to present logically consistent or clear standards for judgment in dispute cases where the principle of separation of authority has been an issue. Accordingly, this study examines the meaning and value of the Local Autonomy Act of the principle of separation and distribution of authority between the head of a local government and the local council, and examines the Supreme Court's decision in a case of authority dispute between internal organizations of a local government where this principle was an issue. The judgment criteria and tendencies were analyzed by dividing them into the aspect of authority and the aspect of intervention, and based on this, a new interpretation method was proposed to determine whether the principle of separation of authority was violated in each aspect. Specifically, in terms of authority, this study critically reviewed the Supreme Court's judgment standards regarding cases of intervention in local government heads' personnel authority, organizational organization authority, and private entrustment authority. In addition, in terms of intervention, a consistent and clear new interpretation standard was advocated that differs from the Supreme Court's existing standard for determining whether authority was violated in relation to the timing of intervention, the degree of intervention, and the establishment of a new inter-agency check mechanism.