A Study on Issues Related to Local Councils' Requests for Document Submission : Analysis of the Supreme Court Decision

In 2023, the Supreme Court of Korea ruled that the re-resolution of the Gyeongsangnam-do Provincial Council was null and void, holding that an ordinance under the Local Autonomy Act violated higher law. However, the ordinance rested on that Act and served as a key mechanism for local councils’ constitutional authority. Denying its validity without clear grounds raises constitutional concerns. This article critiques the Court’s reasoning. First, although the Act and its Enforcement Decree state that document submission cannot be refused absent explicit authorization, the Court held civil servants may refuse even when documents are not confidential under the Security Regulations and may be disciplined for complying-an interpretation at odds with the rule of law. Second, the Court applied the Act on Disclosure of Information by Public Agencies to council requests. However, that Act governs agency-citizen disclosure, not council-executive relations. Such extension could also undermine duties under the Board of Audit and Inspection Act or the Civil Procedure Act-an unreasonable result. Third, the Court found a violation of the Private Investment in Infrastructure Act but overlooked the 2020 amendment’s aim to curb secrecy. Even if some agreements qualify as infrastructure projects, disclosure should be decided case by case, not by voiding the ordinance. In conclusion, the ruling departed from established interpretations and practice and extended laws never meant for local councils, setting a precedent that restricts their constitutional status and weakens oversight.