행정구역 획정원리로서의 공유수면 매립지 경계획정 원리에 관한 일고찰

Abstract

Interest in the reorganization of administrative districts is increasing due to the plan to promote the incorporation of Gimpo-si, Gyeonggi-do into Seoul Special City, triggered by the leader of the ruling party at the time in October 2023. Changes in the metropolitan local governments to which a basic local government belongs may lead to conflicts of interest between metropolitan local governments so it is highly likely that this situation will not be easily resolved depending on the political situation and will ultimately depend on judicial judgment. Under these circumstances, the confirmation of the constitutional discipline related to the delimitation of administrative districts is worth sufficient consideration from a practical aspect beyond simple theoretical interest.
 As part of the basic process for this work, it is meaningful to examine the position of the Constitutional Court on the demarcation of administrative districts for newly reclaimed lands, where multiple decisions were made in the form of competence dispute adjudication, along with the review on the legal system related to administrative district demarcation. In particular, this study reviews the Constitutional Court’s decision[Constitutional Court 2019.4.11. 2015 Heonra 2] which changed the precedent of considering the maritime boundary of public waters as the boundary of the newly reclaimed lands and demands comprehensive consideration of all circumstances based on the principle of equity. Through this study the legitimacy of the Constitutional Court's position of actively considering the purpose of reclamation and the status of the reclamation entity was confirmed, and the issue of jurisdiction over public waters remaining after reclamation and whether acquisition of prescription for the reclaimed land was also reviewed.
 In conclusion, this study can fully accept the Constitutional Court's position of pursuing equity by reviewing all circumstances related to the demarcation of administrative districts for newly reclaimed lands, but it raises some questions about conceptualizing this as a “principle of equity” and confirms that further discussion is necessary.