권한쟁의심판과 당사자에 관한 小考

Abstract

The Constitutional Court strongly shows the effect of functional power control through judgment on disputes on jurisdiction in that judgment on disputes on jurisdiction facilitates the performance of state functions by maintaining an objective authority order and a system to protect the normative effect of the Constitution through checks and balances between horizontal and vertical powers of state agencies and local governments.
 It can be understood that the relationship between ‘state agencies and local governments’ is the same as the relationship between ‘state and local governments’ in that agencies of the state or local governments exist for the state or local governments, but the legal effect resulting from the act of an agency belongs to the state or local government, which is a juridical person, as a subject of laws, not the agency.
 Judgment on disputes on jurisdiction and agency litigation are basically the same in that they argue over authority between juridical persons or the agencies.
 Since agency litigation is a lawsuit between opposing agencies that has the meaning of separation of powers in the distribution of authority within the organization, the limited theory, which means a lawsuit between internal agencies of the same juridical person, is considered reasonable.
 It is a constitutional decision that the current Constitution stipulates “local governments” as a party to judgment on disputes on jurisdiction, and the Constitutional Court Act stipulates that “violation of authority granted by law” should be seen as embodying constitutional decisions in that much of the “jurisdiction dispute between state agencies and local governments” or “jurisdiction dispute between local governments” is legal disputes.
 Local governments need agencies because they cannot exercise their authority on their own, and the agency exercises its own authority for local governments. The legal effect caused by the exercise of that jurisdiction belongs to the local government, which is the subject of the law, but it would be reasonable for the party to dispute for jurisdiction infringement to have its own jurisdiction and to become an agency to actually exercise that jurisdiction.