2. The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 484,439,030 of the water supply construction cost against the Plaintiff on March 24, 2001, the imposition of KRW 940,018,150 of the water supply construction cost on April 10, 201, and the imposition of KRW 2,630,950 of the water supply construction cost on April 25, 2001, respectively, shall be revoked.

3. The total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or there is no reflective evidence of No. 1-2, No. 2-1, No. 2-2, No. 3-1, No. 2, No. 4-1, No. 4-2, No. 6-1 through 3, and No. 9-1 through No. 23.

A. The plaintiff's status

The plaintiff is a redevelopment association which was designated as a housing improvement redevelopment district under the Urban Redevelopment Act, and was authorized to establish a housing improvement redevelopment cooperative and implement the project for the purpose of implementing a redevelopment project on the land of 264,481 square meters of Dobong-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City 101,50,000,000,000,000.

(b) Terms of project implementation authorization;

The head of Gwanak-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as the "head of Gwanak-gu") recognized the housing improvement redevelopment project and added the following conditions for

(i) In order to prevent the aggravation of the water supply area in neighboring areas due to the implementation of the redevelopment project, to save energy based on the plan for the construction of local drainage, the water supply site shall be installed in the water supply site in the complex with two ton capacity per household (10,00 tons or more in total) and shall be reverted to Seoul Special Metropolitan City without compensation.

Belgium Emergency water storage facilities (one ton per apartment household, 10 liters per square meter per general building building area) and apparatuses not exceeding absorption (including itself and pressure facilities) shall be installed so that they may be constructed and supplied to not less than 105m of floors, and separate pipes shall be installed so that the number of floors not more than 105m of the building can be directly supplied.

Article 12(1) of the Act on the Protection and Improvement of Water Supply and Waterworks shall be applied to the project operator for the purpose of planning and pipes, and the project operator shall request the service, and submit a detailed statement of the basis for the calculation of the structure of the drainage and the calculation of the transmission pipes, and

Applicant If it is possible to install a consolidated drainage area (at least 20,000 tons in total) according to the plan for construction of a regional drainage area, the plan for construction of a consolidated drainage area shall be approved by agreement with the project implementer of the adjacent salary 2-2 area, salary 4-2 area, and the place of business of the Southern Water System.

(v)the drainage pipe and drainage pipe in the project district shall be attached to the road opening section at the project implementer’s expense and shall not interfere with the utilization of drainage systems;

Accordingly, it is necessary to determine the diameter, material quality, etc. of the transmission and drainage pipes in consultation with the office of the Southern-do Waterworks.

⑹ 재개발사업 구역 내의 기존 배급수관 등 급수 시설물은 남부수도사업소와 협의하여 유지관리 및 주민급수에 지장이 없도록 공사 착공 전 철거 또는 폐쇄 조치하여야 하며, 부득이 배·급수시설을 이설할 경우에는 이설 계획도서를 남부수도사업소에 제출하여 사전승인을 받을 것이며, 이에 필요한 비용은 재개발사업시행자가 부담할 것

⑺ 단전, 단수시의 급수를 대비하여 아래의 비상발전 설비와 비상급수시설을 설치 및 확보할 것

Electricity supply equipment, such as emergency power generators;

Article 2 of the PPP and the Emergency Water Supply System, which combines its own power;

Equipment, materials, tools, etc. necessary for emergency water supply;

(c) Imposition of water supply construction costs, etc.;

(1) When implementing the Housing Improvement Improvement Project, the Plaintiff completed the construction stipulated in the authorization conditions for the said waterworks, and applied for water supply to the Defendant in order to be supplied with tap water to the apartment (lease apartment, general apartment), commercial and other auxiliary facilities as a result of the redevelopment project.

B. On March 24, 2001, the Defendant imposed on the Plaintiff the tax amount of KRW 484,439,00 on the water supply construction cost for the leased apartment units and the commercial buildings (the building area of KRW 1,532.9,000 per annum) and the welfare Dong (the building area of KRW 2,207.8,00 and the facility contributions of KRW 479,652,00 on the facility contributions. ② on April 10, 201, the Defendant imposed on the Plaintiff the tax amount of KRW 3,544 on the general apartment units and the kindergarten (the building area of KRW 1,405,01,00 per annum) and the residential convenience facilities (the building area of KRW 10,491,30,00 per annum). The imposition of the water supply construction cost of KRW 940,018,150 and KRW 464,382,000 on the facility contributions and the facility contributions of KRW 36301,264,265,264,265.20

Of the disposition of imposing the water supply construction cost, this is based on the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on Waterworks and the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance stipulating that the area of the building is 1,800 square meters per m2,00 won per m2,00 won per m2, and the apartment is based on 290,000 won per m2,000 per m2,000 per m2,000 per m2,000 per m2. However, since the Plaintiff directly executes the construction work of installing the water meter included in the water supply work of the apartment, 259,00 won per m2,00 per m2,00 after deducting the construction cost of the water meter included in the water supply work of the apartment.

2. Relevant statutes;

Water Supply and Waterworks Installation

Article 23 (Supply Regulations)

Every general waterworks business operator shall obtain approval from the authorizing agency before commencing the supply of tap water by setting forth the fees for tap water, the cost bearing for construction on the watersupply facilities, and the terms and conditions of water supply under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, and where the waterworks business operator is a local government,

The former Seoul Metropolitan Government Ordinance on Waterworks (amended by Ordinance No. 3911 of 2001, hereinafter referred to as the "Ordinance")

Article 2 (Definitions)

The definitions of terms used in this Ordinance shall be as follows:

1. The term "water supply system" means the water supply pipes, the water meter, the water tank, the water tank, the water tank, and other water supply-related facilities and equipment connected to the water supply pipes or other water supply pipes;

2. The term "water supply works" means works for the construction, remodeling, repair, removal, etc. of the water supply facilities;

Article 6 (Approval for Water-Supply Works)

(1) A person (limited to actual consumers) who intends to perform water supply works (hereinafter referred to as "construction works") shall request in advance to the Mayor and obtain approval therefor from the Mayor: Provided, That this shall not apply to minor construction works prescribed by the Rules.

(2) The Mayor may install a common water supply system or have it used at the expense of a beneficiary, and the standards for installation, etc. shall be prescribed by rule

Article 7 (Execution of Construction Works)

(1) The Mayor shall design and perform construction works, and the scope thereof shall be prescribed by the Rules.

Article 8 (Bearing Expenses and Reversion of Water Supply Facilities)

(1) A specific amount per household or per unit area of construction (hereinafter referred to as "fixed construction cost") that is publicly notified under the provisions of Article 10 shall be paid at a cost of demand.

(5) The construction cost for water supply as referred to in paragraphs (1) through (4) shall be paid in advance and shall not be settled: Provided, That the construction cost and facility cost as referred to in paragraph (3) shall be refunded or collected in excess or deficient after the completion of the construction,

Article 8 (Bearing Expenses and Reversion of Water Supply Facilities)

(1) A specific amount per household or per unit area of construction (hereinafter referred to as "fixed construction cost") that is publicly notified under the provisions of Article 10 shall be paid at a cost of demand.

(4) Where necessary installation costs other than construction costs are excessive for the supply of water in a specific area publicly notified under Article 10, the head of a Si may install water supply facilities within the relevant area at the expense of the cost of demand.

(5) The construction cost for water supply provided for in paragraphs (1) through (4) shall be paid in advance and shall not be settled.

Article 9 (Methods for Calculating Construction Costs)

(1) The fixed construction cost shall be the sum of material cost, labor cost, road restoration cost, measuring instruments cost, general administrative management cost, and material inspection fees, completion inspection fees, design fees, etc., which are incurred in the planned water supply area in order to increase the cost of supply and demand.

(2) The construction expenses referred to in Article 8 (3) and (4) shall be the actual expenses incurred in construction, such as material cost, labor cost, road restoration cost, measuring instruments cost, and general administrative management expenses.

Article 10 (Public Notice of Fixed Construction Costs and Implementation Areas, etc.)

An area and specific area where a fixed construction cost and a fixed-amount water supply work under Article 8 are implemented shall be determined and publicly notified by the Mayor.

Article 11 (Contribution to Facilities)

(1) Any person who intends to newly install an exclusive water supply system excluding temporary water supply facilities (hereinafter referred to as "temporary water supply"), or to expand the border of a water supply pipe, shall pay the facility contributions as prescribed in the attached Table 1 at the same time as the construction expenses as prescribed in Article 8: Provided, That this shall not apply to cases falling under any of the following subparagraphs:

The attached Table 1> The amount of facility contributions in attached Table 1>

Collection of the difference in the facility contributions for new and old m 15m m 257,000 won in the diameter of the new and old m 15m m breadth within the extension of the boundary of the ticket classification contained in the main text: Provided, That in the case of detached houses (referring to a single, multiple, or multi-family house under Article 2 (2) of the Building Act), collection shall be exempted. In the case of detached houses (referring to a detached, multi-user, or multi-family house under Article 2 (2) of the Building Act), collection shall be exempted: 2,231,00

* In-depth classification shall be based on the name of man-made water supply pipes. Provided, That in case of multi-family housing with a main measuring instrument, the name of water supply pipes for each household shall be applied by 15mm.

Enforcement Regulations of the Seoul Metropolitan Government Waterworks Ordinance

Article 7 (Construction of Common Water Supply System)

(1) Areas where common water supply systems may be installed under Article 6 (2) of the Ordinance and the standards therefor shall be as follows:

1. An area in which the infants who do not own an exclusive water supply system are collectively residing with 20 or more households;

2. An area which interferes with water supply in excess of 40 households among residents who use the existing common water supply system;

3. Areas recognized by the head of a place of business as requiring joint water supply systems because it is difficult to install an exclusive water supply system.

Seoul Special Metropolitan City Public Notice No. 290 (Public notice of the implementation of the fixed amount of new water supply works; hereinafter referred to as the "public notice of this case").

The main contents are as follows:

1. Details of the fixed amount of construction expenses;

For residential drys: 290,000 won per household;

In the case of a general building: 290,000 won per square meter when the annual building area is less than 165 square meters, and 1,800 won per square meter when the annual building area is more than 165

2. If the actual construction cost is less than 150% of the fixed amount system construction cost, only the fixed amount system construction cost shall be collected, and if the amount exceeds 150%, the amount in excess shall be collected; and

3. Determination on the legitimacy of a disposition imposing water supply construction cost

A. Determination of illegality on the ground of non-execution

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

According to the Water Supply and Waterworks Installation Act and municipal ordinances, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor may impose the cost of water supply construction only when the design and construction of the water supply construction works is executed. The water supply construction works for the above apartment and commercial buildings and other auxiliary facilities are not executed by the defendant, but performed all costs of approximately KRW 1.5 billion in accordance with the terms and conditions of the approval for the implementation of the redevelopment project. Therefore, the defendant cannot be separately required to pay the cost of water supply construction to the plaintiff

Do Governor, the facts and judgment

First, as seen in Article 2 (1) and 2 of the Ordinance, the term "water supply construction works" means construction works for the installation, remodeling, repair, removal, etc. of the water supply facilities (such as the water supply pipe, water meter, water reservoir, water tank, water tank, and other facilities, equipment, etc. related to water supply installed connected to the water supply pipe or other water supply pipe), and it does not constitute construction works for the installation, relocation, removal, etc. of the water pipe or water pipe.

Therefore, as to whether the Plaintiff directly performed water supply works within the above meaning, it is reasonable to view that the construction works related to water supply are not all the water supply facilities construction works, but the water supply pipes installed by the Plaintiff as the water supply pipes and water supply pipes installed by the Plaintiff under the premise that the Plaintiff’s construction works are not water supply facilities installed or relocated under the terms of the Water Supply and Waterworks Installation Act and the Municipal Ordinance, and that the design and construction of the water supply facilities are, in principle, implemented by the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor, and that the water supply facilities installed or relocated to the Plaintiff in relation to the water supply facilities under the terms of the approval for the implementation of the redevelopment project, it is reasonable to view that the water supply pipes installed by the Plaintiff as the water supply pipes and water supply pipes installed by the Plaintiff. Rather, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the water supply pipes installed by the water supply pipes installed by the water supply pipes from the water supply facilities to the water supply pipes 1, 2, 6 Eul, 7-1 to 14, 7-14, 1 to 201-1-20 each quarter and 20.

B. Determination on the illegality of municipal ordinances and notifications

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

In light of the municipal ordinances, the fixed cost of the water supply construction is the amount of actual construction cost, and therefore, it is reasonable to uniformly collect it by the public notice even though it is reasonable to reduce the actual construction cost when it is less than the fixed construction cost.

In addition, the ordinances that set the amount of the water supply construction cost uniformly at KRW 290,00 per household, and KRW 1,800 per square meter, and the instant announcement violates the principle of guaranteeing property rights and the principle of equality under the Constitution by allowing the actual construction cost to be settled when the actual construction cost exceeds 150% of the fixed construction cost.

Dozed Facts

The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the whole purport of arguments as to the results of each fact-finding on the Busan Metropolitan City Water Service Headquarters and the Incheon Metropolitan City Water Service Headquarters, and the results of each fact-finding on the Water Service Center of the first instance court, which do not conflict between the parties, or on the evidence Nos. 1, 3, 15-1, 2, 18-2, and 18-2

㈎ 피고는 원고로부터 급수신청을 받고 동익건설이라는 사업체를 운영하는 이광범에게 급수공사를 도급주어, 위 업체가 2001. 4. 20.부터 같은 해 5. 20.까지 이 사건 아파트 및 부대상가 등에 대하여 급수공사를 시행하였는데, 위 공사에 실제로 소요된 비용은 모두 59,130,090원으로서 그 비용내역 및 공사내역은 아래와 같다.

(1) Details of expenses.

(B) 41,576,490 won for the total contract amount (hereinafter referred to as the following :

37,796,810 won (cost of materials 5,325,183 won, labor cost 20,716,503 won, expenses 2,900,310 won, and other expenses 1,68,765 won, general management expenses 1,89,70 won, profits 4,235,429) Value-Added Tax 3,779,680 won.

(C) Sub-Section 15,105,600,00

Categoryd Road Restoration Expenses 2,448,000 won

(2) Details of construction works.

Correspond general apartments

The extension distance (the total extension 139m) for each section of the water supply pipes;

Gu Senior 32mm: 65m

Gu Senior 80mm: 49m

Gu 300mm: 25m

Maritime Affairs and Trade Office, 4 2mm, 80mm, 300mm, and 300mm

(C) the rental apartment

The extension distance (the total extension 40.5m) for each section of the water supply pipes to be established;

Gu Senior 32mm: 3.5m

Gu 40mm: 22m

Gu 250mm: 15m

Maritime water measuring room: Three total numbers of rooms (one for each police station).

Category caused by Feongcheon5 Dong Office

The extension distance attached to a water supply pipe: 32mm in diameter, 5m in distance;

Maritime Affairs and Maritime Affairs Office

㈏ 건물을 건축하여 새로이 급수를 받기 위하여는 급수공사에 따른 급수공사비 외에 조례 제11조에 따라 시설분담금도 납부하여야 하는데, 시설분담금이란 정수장, 가압장, 배수지, 송수관 등 생산공급시설에 소요된 건설비를 수익자 부담의 원칙에 따라 징수하는 것으로서 신규급수공사나 구경확대공사 신청시에 수도계량기의 구경에 따라 정액으로 1회 부과하게 되어 있다.

㈐ 한편, 급수공사비는 처음에는 실제공사비를 기준으로 부과하다가 1981. 8. 10.에 이르러 조례의 개정으로 현재와 같이 정액공사비를 부과하는 것으로 변경되었는데, 이는 실제공사비를 부과하는 경우 그 액수 산정의 적정성을 둘러싸고 다툼이 발생하는 등 행정처리상의 어려움을 겪게 되고, 수요가 별로 별개의 수도관을 부설함으로써 시설이 중복하여 비효율적으로 설치되는 등 여러 가지 문제점이 있었기 때문이다.

㈑ 한편, 1981. 8. 10. 최초로 정액공사비제도가 시행되었을 때의 수도조례(당시의 명칭은 급수조례이다, 이하 ‘구조례’라 한다)의 내용은 다음과 같다.

Article 8 (Liability for Expenses and Reversion of Water Supply Facilities)

(1) Construction expenses within a planned water supply area shall be a specific amount per household or per unit area of construction (hereinafter referred to as the "fixed construction cost") publicly notified under Article 10: Provided, That where the expenses required for a construction exceed 150% of the fixed construction cost due to the distance and difficulty of a construction project, the expenses exceeding 150% in addition to the fixed construction cost shall be paid.

Article 9 (Methods for Calculating Construction Costs)

(1) Fixed construction costs shall be the total amount of costs required for construction, such as material costs, labor costs, road restoration costs, acquisition period costs, general administrative management costs and fees (including materials inspection, completion inspection, design fees, etc.), and shall be calculated based on the average value of the construction performed for a certain period.

Article 10 (Public Notice of Fixed Construction Costs and Real Area)

An area and specific area where a fixed construction cost and a fixed-amount water supply work under the provisions of Article 8 are implemented shall be publicly notified at the beginning of each year by the Mayor: Provided, That when it is deemed inevitable to adjust due to changes in public utility charges, price wages, etc., it may

Article 11 (Contribution to Facilities)

(1) A person who intends to construct or remodel an exclusive water supply facility (limited to the case of expanding the diameter of a water supply pipe) shall pay the facility contributions referred to in attached Table 1 simultaneously with the construction costs referred to in Article 8.

㈒ 그러나 그 후 조례가 개정되면서 위 각 규정은 앞서 관계법령에서 본 바와 같이 개정되었는데, 이를 서로 비교해보면, 특히 정액공사비 산출요소로 간선배관 공사비가 새로이 포함되게 된 반면(제9조 제1항), 일정기간 시행된 공사의 평균치를 기준으로 하여 정액공사비를 산출한다는 규정(제9조 제1항)과 정액공사비는 매년 초 시장이 고시한다는 규정(제10조)은 삭제되었다(위의 개정이 언제 이루어졌는지는 불명확하다. 그리고, 송수관 등 수도시설에 소요되는 건설비는 시설분담금으로 징수하는 점에 비추어 보면, 배관공사비를 정액공사비의 산정요소로서 포함한 것이 급수공사비의 성질에 비추어 합당한 것인지는 의문이다.).

㈓ 한편, 인천광역시나 부산광역시 모두 급수공사에 관하여 정액공사비제도를 채택하고 있으나, 일반 건물과 아파트를 구분하여 책정하고 있다(특히 인천광역시의 경우 아파트도 그 규모에 따라 세분하여 책정하고 있다.).

【Judgment

㈎ 정액공사비 제도의 취지와 그 한계

In light of the purport of the aforementioned system, the fixed construction cost system is adopted to solve various problems arising from the calculation and imposition of the water supply construction cost at the cost actually incurred in the construction work. According to this, it is inevitable to bear the construction cost in an amount different from the actual cost incurred in the construction work (in cases where the actual construction cost and the fixed construction cost coincide with the actual construction cost, it shall be deemed extremely rare) and there is an unfair aspect contrary to the general principle of cost burden burden that is borne by the amount of profit. However, in light of the purport of the aforementioned system as seen earlier, the fact that the construction cost in an amount different from the actual construction cost is imposed does not affect the validity or legitimacy of the aforementioned system itself.

However, even though it is unreasonable that the cost actually spent and the cost to be borne are different in the fixed construction cost system, accepting it is not due to the size of efficiency in administrative processing or facility operation rather than the illegality, and the illegality with such difference is not due to the uncertainty, and therefore, the general principle of cost burden burden that the cost cost is to be borne as much as possible in the fixed construction cost system should be reduced as possible, and the purport of the Ordinance stipulating that the fixed construction cost shall be determined as the sum of the costs related to the construction shall also be reflected immediately.

In addition, the fixed construction cost is not the cost actually invested in the construction project, but the estimation of the statistics of various elements included in the calculation factor. Therefore, even if it cannot coincide with the actual construction cost, the accuracy of the statistics should be first secured to a certain extent in order to calculate the construction cost. To this end, it is desirable to estimate the construction cost using the latest statistics as much as possible. Therefore, it is necessary to calculate the fixed construction cost close to the actual construction cost based on the latest statistics as much as possible. This is because the former Ordinance (Articles 9 and 10) which introduced the fixed construction cost system explicitly demands the fixed construction cost system, and it is also necessary to delete the relevant regulations.

In addition, it is clear that the purpose of the fixed construction cost system is to promote administrative convenience by imposing the same amount despite a certain difference in the cost, and therefore, the "fixed amount" is bound to be a "united fixed amount" to any extent. However, even in the fixed construction cost system, the "fixed amount" should be observed as much as possible, and the "fixed amount" is not the "fixed amount" as a concept equivalent to the "amount actually required", and it is not the "united amount", and it is not the "united amount". Thus, uniformly determining construction cost for all water supply projects is contrary to the purpose of the Ordinance when it seriously infringes on the principle of cost-bearing, as it goes against the principle of equality under the Constitution. Therefore, it is not allowed for the Mayor of Seoul Metropolitan Government to calculate construction cost, and it is not clearly different from the elements directly affecting the calculation of construction cost and it is not considerably difficult to compute the construction cost according to the distinction.

However, it is difficult for the Water Supply Corporation to find factors affecting the cost of the water supply pipes, which are basically laid underground, depending on the diameter and length of the water supply pipes installed in the ground, and there is no other factor affecting the cost. Accordingly, even if construction work is conducted in the same scale, in the case of a concentrated residential behavior such as apartment, many expropriations enjoy benefit, while in the case of a detached house, much small number of expropriations enjoy benefit, while in the case of a detached house, in the case of a concentrated residential form, the cost of the construction should be considerably less than that of a detached house. Therefore, in determining a fixed construction cost, there should be differences in the amount of the construction cost depending on the residential concentrated form.

㈏ 정액공사비 결정 및 이 사건 고시의 위법성

Therefore, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor who has been granted the authority to determine the amount of the fixed construction cost under the municipal ordinances shall have the obligation to determine it in accordance with the purport of the fixed construction cost system as above, and if the amount becomes inappropriate, it shall be corrected and the obligation to review the appropriateness of the construction cost from time to time.

Therefore, as seen earlier, the fixed construction cost in Seoul was set at 290,00 won per month (1,800 won per square meter where the area exceeds 165 square meters) by the public notice of August 10, 1981, regardless of the residential form of the expropriation, and there is no change for 20 years since the expropriation was set at 290,00 won per square meter. In the first time, it is not clearly known how the factors for calculation under Article 9 of the former Ordinance were reflected in the calculation of the fixed construction cost in the above amount, but it is difficult to accept the Defendant’s assertion that the fixed construction cost was divided into 72,764 won (25.09%) among them, 143,856 won (49.61%), 62,860 won (21.67%) for road restoration cost, apartment housing management cost and other housing construction cost, and 10,520 won (3.63% per square meter).

In addition, as the development of each area of Seoul Metropolitan City has been continuously developed, the apartment complex has been widely disseminated, and road facilities and water supply facilities have been expanded, so it has become much higher than the previous one, and the necessity of calculating the fixed construction cost by classifying the fixed construction cost by residential type has increased more. In addition, even though the factors for calculating the absolute amount of the fixed construction cost have considerably changed, it cannot be viewed as the sum of the factors for calculating the fixed construction cost of KRW 290,000 per month as stipulated in the Ordinance of 1981, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor did not re-calculated the fixed construction cost once again (no materials have been submitted) while the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor did not have any duty to calculate the fixed construction cost in accordance with the above Ordinance.

Thus, the notice of this case, which is maintained in accordance with the above duty performance of the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, is against the Municipal Ordinance and is against the principle of equality under the Constitution, unless there are special circumstances, such as that the prescribed amount is adequate as a fixed construction cost despite the changes in the above circumstances.

㈐ 이 사건에 있어서의 판단

However, as seen earlier, the construction of apartment and its appurtenant facilities that the Defendant implemented in the instant case is considerably small to 5,487 households, and its cost is merely 59,130,090 won. On the other hand, all of the water supply construction cost imposed is 1,427,08,130 won and is about 24 times the actual construction cost. The aforementioned actual construction cost does not include any part of the elements corresponding to the factors for calculating the fixed construction cost, such as pipes construction cost and administrative management cost, but if the content of the above actual construction cost is based on the Defendant’s assertion as to the elements of the cost of KRW 290,000 per month, it is obvious that the fixed construction cost is 71.28% of the total construction cost (49.61% of the water supply construction cost + road restoration cost + 21.67% of the total construction cost, etc.) which accounts for the remainder of 28.72% of the construction cost (such as pipes and administrative cost).

Therefore, the notice of this case is not only against the purpose of delegation of the ordinance, but also against the principle of equality under the Constitution, and is thus null and void. Therefore, the disposition of imposition of each water supply cost of this case based on the notice of this case null and void is also illegal.

㈑ 피고 주장에 대한 판단

In regard to this, the defendant claimed that the fixed construction cost of 290,000 won per month is not unfair, if the amount constructed by the defendant's business office in charge of the location of the apartment of this case reaches 3.6 billion won, and considering the above pipeline construction cost, it cannot be deemed that the fixed construction cost of 290,000 won per month is unreasonable.

However, it is difficult to recognize the above assertion only with the descriptions of No. 21-1 and No. 2 of the evidence No. 21-2, and the cost of installing supply facilities such as transmission and drainage pipes is related to the calculation of the fixed construction cost, and the cost of installing supply facilities such as transmission and drainage pipes is imposed separately from the fixed construction cost related to the facility contributions. It is difficult to regard all the construction cost stated in the above certificate as a simple construction cost which is reflected in the calculation of the fixed construction cost. Even if it is established that the above construction cost has been spent, it is not affected by the judgment that there is a significant difference between the water supply construction cost and the fixed construction cost as seen earlier, and therefore, the notice of this case is contrary to the Ordinance and contrary to the principle of equality under the Constitution, there

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair on the grounds of its conclusion, and it is so revoked, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all.

Judge Lee Jin-jin (Presiding Judge)