용인경전철 주민소송 사건에 대한 고찰

Abstract

The Supreme Court decision (2020. 7. 29. 2017Du63467) is very meaningful in that this decision, through ‘Local Autonomy Act’ No.4 resident’s suit, acknowledged the legal responsibility to Yongin Everline Public Private Partnership (PPP) projects which is criticized for abuse of local government’s finance. In contrast to first-tier & second-tier court, the Supreme Court relived the mandatory resident’s audit condition and widened the concept of ‘financial accounting act’ as an object of resident’s suit. Furthermore, the Supreme Court clarified that the public officer(including the head of local government) is responsible only for willful or gross negligence and plaintiff should specify the scope of indemnification. These points can be evaluated positively. However, following points should be criticized. The Supreme Court saw ‘relationship’ between resident’s audit and resident’s suit from the perspective of ‘similarity.’ Furthermore, the Supreme Court deemed plain negligence is sufficient for legal responsibility of ‘Korea Transport Institute’ without consideration of its legal status and calculated mechanically on the scope of indemnification in relation to selecting law firm for international arbitration. In spite of a few points which should be criticized, this decision will contribute tremendously to prevent reckless PPP projects. Based on this decision, resident’s suit is expected to be actively implemented and local government’s ‘financial accounting acts’ are conducted reasonably.