[2] In a case where the head of the competent Gu imposes an amount borne by the burden of sewage on the building owner Gap, etc. who newly constructed a building by selling a site created by a land readjustment project, the case holding that the above disposition of imposition imposed on Gap, etc. without a reasonable ground by the head of the Gu in a situation where the requirements for imposition of the amount borne by the burden of sewage for the cost of installing the public sewerage necessary for treating sewage expected to be generated by the project corresponding to other acts under Article 32 (2) of the former Sewerage Act are significant and obvious, although the cost

1. In order for a defective administrative disposition to be null and void as a matter of course, it must be objectively obvious that the defect violates important parts of the relevant law and objectively. In determining whether the defect is significant and obvious, the purpose, meaning, function, etc. of the relevant law should be examined from a teleological perspective, and at the same time, reasonable consideration should be made on the specificity of the specific case itself (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 94Nu4615, Jul. 11, 1995; Supreme Court Decision 2010Du10907, Feb. 16, 2012). Meanwhile, where an administrative agency issued an administrative disposition by applying a provision of a law to a certain legal relationship or fact, if there is room for dispute over the interpretation of the law, it is obvious that the administrative agency erred and erroneous interpretation of the law is merely erroneous, and thus, it cannot be said that there is no room for dispute over the interpretation of the said provision to be 105Da12081, Feb. 16, 20192.

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, it is hard to view that the Defendant’s construction of the above-mentioned Act No. 1 and its subordinate statute No. 2 as the 10-year Ordinance on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents cannot be imposed on the owner of the above-mentioned building. Since the Defendant’s construction of the above-mentioned Act and its subordinate statute No. 1 and its subordinate statute No. 2 were clearly unlawful, it is hard to view the Defendant’s construction of the above-mentioned Act No. 1 and its subordinate statute No. 2 as the 10-year Ordinance on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, and it is also difficult to view the Plaintiff’s construction of the above-mentioned Act and its subordinate statute No. 2 as the 10-year Ordinance on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, and thus, it should be deemed that the Plaintiff’s construction of the above-mentioned Ordinance No. 1 and its subordinate ordinance No. 2 should be deemed null and void. 180-year.

3. However, the lower court’s determination is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

A. The primary purpose of Article 32(2) of the former Sewerage Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8014, Sep. 27, 2006; hereinafter the same) is to impose the burden on the person causing environmental pollution that has caused the establishment or extension of the public sewerage. Since it is understood that other acts stipulated in the above Act mean the act of creating the public sewerage by itself, it does not mean that the actual person causing the expansion of the public sewerage project is the owner of a building who newly constructed the building after acquiring a site within the relevant development project area from the project area, unless there are special circumstances. Therefore, if a building is constructed on the land created by an urban development project operator as a project falling under “other acts” under the Sewerage Act, the burden on the person who bears the burden on the public sewerage shall be deemed not to have been borne by the project operator, and the owner of the building shall not be deemed to have been separately obligated to bear the burden on the public sewerage project area 20,000,000 another project area 20,000 won.

Article 18 (2) 2 (b) (i) of the Incheon Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Use of Sewerage on January 8, 2001 amended the former Ordinance to delete the Land and Rearrangement Projects Act in the specific examples of laws and regulations applicable to urban development projects, which are other acts provided for in Article 18 (2) 2 (b) (i) of the Incheon Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Use of Sewerage. However, it can be deemed that the Land and Rearrangement Projects Act was repealed by Act No. 6252 on January 28, 2000. The former Ordinance and the provisions of this case are "urban development projects" as the type of public sewerage construction works under the Sewerage Act, and they do not explicitly include the Urban Planning Act, the Housing Construction Promotion Act, the Urban Redevelopment Promotion Act, the Housing Site Development Promotion Act, the Urban Park Development Promotion Act, the Urban Park Development Promotion Act, the Act on the Construction Promotion, Green Areas, etc. of Urban Parks, etc., which are the basis of the relevant Act and subordinate statutes. Therefore, it is clear that the new Ordinance and urban development projects are not explicitly included in the relevant Act.

B. Considering the circumstances, the meaning of the requirements for imposing the amount borne by the burden of sewage, which is imposed on the operator of the project of this case, for the expenses incurred in treating sewage anticipated to be generated from the project of this case, which was implemented at the time of the completion of the project of this case on August 21, 2006 under Article 32 (2) of the former Sewerage Act and Article 32 (2) of the Ordinance of this case, at the time of the defendant's disposal of this case, is clear, but the defendant erroneously interpreted the meaning without reasonable grounds, and as a result, it constitutes a case where the disposition of this case was conducted against the plaintiffs without satisfying the requirements for disposal, such defect is significant and objective

Even if the Family Council of Incheon Metropolitan City excludes the laws and regulations on the ground of a land readjustment project in urban development project, which is an act, in order for the implementer of a land readjustment project, such as the project in this case, to not bear the burden of sewage burden, it is clear in light of the above legal principles that the defendant is not allowed to impose the burden of sewage burden on the implementer of the land readjustment project, not the actual cause of the expansion of public sewerage system, but the construction of a new building within the intended scope of the project in the original project. Thus, it is obvious that the defects of the disposition in the disposition in this case, which was imposed on the plaintiffs, are significant and obvious.

Nevertheless, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the invalidation of an administrative disposition as a matter of course, and the ground of appeal pointing this out has merit, on the ground that the court below's determination that even if there is a defect in each disposition of this case, it is hard to see it as the

4. Conclusion

The lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-deok (Presiding Justice)