매립지 관할 귀속결정과 사법적 불복 방법

Abstract

Contrary to its expectations, the Saemangeum project, which was expected to be the world’s largest reclamation project, has been a protagonist of legal and social conflicts and disputes from the beginning. Although the world’s longest seawall has been completed after a decade-long legal battle over environmental issues, the Saemangeum area has recently become another cause of social conflict due to jurisdiction. The ultimate solution to conflicts and disputes is bound to be judicial judgment. Disputes and conflicts over landfills are of great normative significance beyond simple social meaning, as the decision to attribute land to landfills has the meaning of zoning by local governments. Therefore, the need for judicial dispute resolution is even greater. Under the current Local Autonomy Act, the landfill attribution system is a structure of the Minister of Public Administration and Security’s attribution decision and a Supreme Court complaint against it, but there is criticism on whether it is a normative appropriate attribution decision structure and a method of judicial dispute resolution. At the same time, the relationship between the Supreme Court’s complaint and other constitutional lawsuits, such as the trial of a competence dispute, as a method of objection to the decision of attribution is not clearly established legally. The possibility of remedy for infringement of local autonomy is an indispensable request for effective guarantee of local autonomy. In particular, the possibility of “optimal” rights relief requested through constitutional guarantees of local autonomy should be guaranteed, which is directly related to the need for judicial guarantees, considering the normative characteristics of local autonomy. There is a lot of controversy over the legitimacy and validity of the current Local Autonomy Act’s provision of a complaint against the Supreme Court as a judicial objection to the decision to attribute the landfill. However, apart from the controversy, legislative policy decisions are needed to prevent contradictions or conflicts in legal judgments, at least in relation to the Supreme Court’s complaint and other methods of dispute, especially the trial of a competence dispute as a constitutional trial. The effectiveness and institutional completeness of judicial relief do not lie in the various acceptances of judicial relief methods, but in the fidelity of judicial relief and the trust of the parties. In light of the normative meaning and practical importance of local governments’ districts, local governments that are disadvantaged in the decision to attribute landfills have no choice but to seek some form of objection. In such a dispute situation, if contradictions or conflicts of legal judgment arise due to the ambiguity of the current legal system for judicial disobedience, this will rather undermine legal stability and lead to another legal dispute and conflict, and legislative improvement is needed to prevent this.