[ad_1]
Kim Soo-sam, Chairman of the New Gimhae Airport Verification Committee, announces the results of the verification of the New Gimhae Airport on the 17th. [연합뉴스]
When the Prime Minister’s Office’s New Gimhae Airport Verification Committee concluded that a “ fundamental review ” is needed for the New Gimhae Airport, it was confirmed that the timing of consultations with local governments was not mentioned in the interpretation of the authority of the Legislative Office, which was presented as the main basis.
Previously, the Verification Committee argued that the Ministry of Lands, Infrastructure and Transport had to consult with the city of Busan before establishing the basic (draft) plan. For this reason, it is noted that the verification committee reached a negative conclusion to the New Gimhae Airport first and adjusted the interpretation of the authority to the Ministry of Legislation.
The failures of the lawsuit for legal failures
There are Gimhae and Gadeokdo airports.
On the 20th, according to the Prime Minister’s Office and the Ministry of Legislation, on the 10th, the Ministry of Legislation sent a response to the questionnaire on the interpretation of the verification committee voters in relation to the Airport Facilities Law. In principle, it is said that the mountain near the airport must be cut above a certain height, and if left as is, consultation with the local government is required. It contained only the interpretation of the legal text on four A4 sheets.
On this basis, Kim Soo-sam, Chairman of the verification committee, said in the announcement of the verification results of the new Gimhae airport on the 17th: “Basically, the principle is to remove obstacles beyond the restricted area and To neglect it exceptionally, we received a response that consultations with local governments must be preceded. It was noted that prior to the establishment of the basic plan (draft), consultations with local governments should be carried out.
Arbitrary interpretation controversy
However, in the interpretation of the legislative power assured by this magazine, it is not mentioned when to consult. An official from the Ministry of Legislation said: “No opinions or interpretations are sent to the verification committee other than the official interpretation of the votes.” It is possible to assume that the Verification Committee arbitrarily determined that “priority in consultation with local governments” was necessary.
Hee-young Heo, a professor at Korea Aerospace University, said: “It is not appropriate to establish a basic plan and raise issues that can be discussed (with local governments) after the announcement.” “I made a basic draft of whether to cut the mountain or get around the obstacles (planes). You can adjust it later. I don’t know if there is any part of the procedure that violates the law ”.
Capture question and answer data
Question-and-answer materials that do not fit back and forth
Also, in the ‘question and answer data’ distributed by the verification committee on the 17th, there are many explanations that are incorrect. ‘According to the interpretation of the Ministry of Legislation, it is necessary to consult with the head of the corresponding administrative agency for negligence of (obstacles) after the notification of the basic plan (draft). Is it a violation of the law that was not discussed at the basic (draft) plan establishment stage? ‘ I wrote it.
He then replied: “It is correct that the consultation is necessary after the basic (draft) plan is notified. However, according to the interpretation of the Ministry of Legislation, in principle, the obstacles should not be neglected in principle, and consultation with the heads of the relevant administrative bodies, such as local governments, is necessary for exceptional negligence. Therefore, it was judged that it was contrary to the purpose of the law to establish the basic plan (draft) under the premise that the Ministry of Lands, Infrastructure and Lands was neglected ”.
According to the question and answer data of the Verification Committee, inquiries on whether to cut the mountain can be made after the notification of the basic plan (draft). But suddenly, I hit the hard-to-understand conclusion that it was against the purpose of the law just because I didn’t do this first.
An aviation expert who requested anonymity said: “It is common sense that there is no problem with aviation security without cutting the mountain through a technical review, but I do not understand that we should consult with local governments.” It can only be interpreted as a problem. ”
Question and answer data from the Verification Committee.
“Flight safety is not an issue.”
In addition, the verification committee said in this question and answer data: “The results of the interpretation of the Ministry of Legislation do not conclude that there is a problem with the safety of the flights.” It was also explained that consultation was necessary, but that it did not mean that it was directly related to flight safety. It is said that even the interpretation of the authority of the Ministry of Legislation, which the Verification Committee proposed as the basis for the “basic review”, does not hinder the safety of the flight.
Regarding this controversy, the Verification Committee said: “The authoritative interpretation of the Ministry of Legislation that mountain obstacles above the altitude limit should be removed in principle, it was concluded that the promotion of the New Gimhae Airport requires a revision fundamental. It was verified through intense discussions in, ”he explained.
Reporter Kang Gap-saeng, Reporter Yeom Ji-hyun, Reporter Sejong = Kim Min-wook [email protected]
[ad_2]
