All
| TITLE | 【Syllabus of Latest Opinion】 Supreme Court Decision 2023Chu5177 Decided July 25, 2024 【Confirmation of Invalidity of Ordinance Bill Resolution】 [full Text] |
|---|---|
| Summary | |
| 【Main Issues and Holdings】 [1] In a case where, despite the amendment of an ordinance bill, which was subject to determination in a lawsuit for confirmation of invalidity of the passage thereof, its content remains practically unaltered and constant, whether an interest in a lawsuit pertaining to a pre-amendment ordinance bill is extinguished (negative), and where an interest in a lawsuit can be admitted on an exceptional basis even though the possibility for directly contesting the unlawfulness of an ordinance bill has been eliminated, in accordance with the principle of primacy of the law, upon the amendment, etc. of an ordinance bill [2] Statutes and regulations that serve as the standard for determination in a lawsuit where whether an ordinance bill is in violation of statutes and regulations is disputed pursuant to Article 192(8) of the Local Autonomy Act (held: statutes and regulations having a normative effect at the time of the closing of argument) [3] In a case where the Minister of Interior and Safety demanded that the Mayor reconsider Article 13-2 of the “Partial Amendment of the Ordinance Bill of the Busan Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Management of Outdoor Advertisements and Promotion of Outdoor Advertisement Industry,” which states that in a case where a political party displays or installs political party banners, it has to satisfy two requirements, i.e., first, the number of hanging banners that can be simultaneously installed is one per Eup/Myeon/Dong (Subparag. 1) and second, banners should not contain hate speech or defamatory content (Subparag. 2), before installing it on the designated display stands, on the grounds that the said ordinance bill is in violation of the relevant statutes and regulations, with which the Mayor did not comply, subsequent to which the Minister filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the passage of the ordinance bill based on Article 192(8) of the Local Autonomy Act, the case holding that the disputed provision in the pertinent ordinance bill is in violation of Article 117(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea and the main text of Article 28(1) of the Local Autonomy Act stating the primacy of statutes and regulations over ordinances | |
