National river affairs and validity of a cost-sharing agreement

1. 01Question

   Is the construction, operation and maintenance of a weir on a national river a national affair that does not become a local affair merely because a local government bears part of the cost, and may an agreement requiring that local government to bear part of the construction cost and all operation and maintenance costs be held unlawful or void?

2. 02Holding

   Yes, the affair is national. Under Article 117(1) of the Constitution, Article 9(1) and Article 11(iv) of the Local Autonomy Act and Article 8(1) and Article 27(5) of the River Act, affairs concerning a national river are national affairs unless another statute provides otherwise, and the Local Autonomy Act and the River Act both leave room for a local government to bear part of the cost. Weighing the content and structure of those provisions, their legislative purpose, the fact that the county governor voluntarily proposed bearing the extra construction cost although full state funding was available at the originally selected site, the feasibility re-survey of the changed site, and the fact that most of the real economic benefit of the weir would accrue to the local government and its residents, the Court held that the agreement could not be regarded as unlawful or void.

   Summary of the holding, verbatim

   위와 같은 규정에 따르면, 국가하천에 관한 사무는 다른 법령에 특별한 정함이 없는 한 국가사무로 보아야 한다. 지방자치단체가 비용 일부를 부담한다고 해서 국가사무의 성격이 자치사무로 바뀌는 것은 아니다.

   Unofficial English translation

   According to the above provisions, affairs concerning national rivers must be regarded as affairs of the State unless otherwise specially provided by other statutes. The character of affairs of the State is not transformed into autonomous affairs because a local government bears part of the costs.

3. 03Disposition

   Dismissed Stated in the decision

   상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 보조참가로 인한 부분을 포함하여 원고가 부담한다.

   Unofficial English translation

   The appeal is dismissed. The plaintiff shall bear the costs of the final appeal, including those incurred by reason of the auxiliary participation.

4. 04Form of the test

   Circumstances weighed Stated in the decision

   수중보로 인한 실질적인 경제적 이익은 대부분 지방자치단체와 그 주민들에게 귀속될 것으로 보이는 점 등을 종합하면, 갑 지방자치단체에 수중보 건설비용 일부와 운영·유지비용 전부를 부담하도록 한 협약이 위법·무효라고 볼 수 없다고 한 사례.

   Unofficial English translation

   Considering, among other things, that it appears that the substantial economic benefits arising from the submerged weir will accrue in large part to the local government and its residents, a case in which the agreement obligating local government A to bear part of the submerged weir construction costs and the entirety of the operation and maintenance costs cannot be regarded as unlawful and void.

5. 05Factors

   • 국가하천에 관한 사무는 다른 법령에 특별한 정함이 없는 한 국가사무로 보아야 한다
   • 지방자치단체가 비용 일부를 부담한다고 해서 국가사무의 성격이 자치사무로 바뀌는 것은 아니다
   • 수중보 건설사업 지점으로 최초 채택되었던 지점에 사업을 시행할 경우 전액 국고 부담으로 할 수 있었는데도
   • 자발적으로 군수가 추가 공사비 등을 부담하는 방법을 제안하여 이를 반영한 변경지점에 대한 타당성 재조사를 거쳐 협약을 체결한 점
   • 수중보로 인한 실질적인 경제적 이익은 대부분 지방자치단체와 그 주민들에게 귀속될 것으로 보이는 점

   Unofficial English translation

   • Affairs concerning national rivers must be regarded as affairs of the State unless otherwise specially provided by other statutes

   • The character of affairs of the State is not transformed into autonomous affairs because a local government bears part of the costs

   • Even though, if the project were carried out at the site initially adopted as the location for the submerged weir construction project, it could have been funded entirely at national treasury expense

   • The county governor voluntarily proposed bearing the additional construction costs and the like, and the agreement was concluded after a re-examination of feasibility was conducted as to the changed site reflecting such proposal

   • It appears that the substantial economic benefits arising from the submerged weir will accrue in large part to the local government and its residents

6. 06Relation to precedent

   Cannot be determined Not in the decision

   Decisions referred to

   해당 본문 참조

7. 07Burden of proof

   Not addressed Not in the decision

8. 08Open question and revisit condition

   Where no agreement is concluded, may the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport order a local government to bear part of the cost of a national river work solely under Article 61(1) of the River Act?

   An amendment to the cost-bearing rules in Article 59 or Article 61 of the River Act, Article 122(2), 123 or 141 of the Local Autonomy Act, or Articles 74 and 75 of the Enforcement Decree of the River Act would require this entry to be read again. A later decision treating a cost-sharing agreement without a voluntary proposal or a feasibility re-survey would also call for a fresh reading.

Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.

Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.