[과태료부등과처분취소청구사건][하집1984(4),618]
Whether a fine for negligence has been imposed is intentional or negligent;
The fine for negligence, which is a crime of administrative order, does not require the intention or negligence of the person subject to the fine for negligence as a sanction against the act of disturbing order which may obstruct the achievement of administrative purpose.
Articles 32 (1) 3 and 34 (1) and (2) of the Water Supply Ordinance of Seoul Metropolitan Government
Plaintiff
The head of Yongsan-gu
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The disposition that the Defendant imposed an administrative fine of KRW 253,55 on the Plaintiff on February 17, 1984 pursuant to Article 34(1) and (2) of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Water Supply Ordinance (No. 1771), which imposes an administrative fine of KRW 253,55, and a surcharge of KRW 1,185, shall be revoked.
The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant.
Comprehensively taking account of the descriptions of Gap evidence 2-1 (official document), 2 (written notice), 1 (written water supply), 2-2 (written water supply treatment guidelines), 3-1 (written water supply treatment guidelines), and 3-1 (written evidence) as well as the testimony of the non-party witness, the non-party witness's testimony as to the whole purport of the pleading:
As the Plaintiff demanded on June 18, 1983 that the water pipe connected to the Seo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Han River C (C) Dong-dong, Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Seoul and the apartment management office in contact with the above apartment to repair the defective part of the water pipe, the Nonparty, who is an employee of the above apartment management office, removed the measuring instrument while replacing the water pipe Nab and the old water pipe, and installed the measuring instrument as a station because of the error in the process of reconnection, the Plaintiff’s above act, namely, the Defendant, at the request of the Nonparty, who is an employee of the apartment management office, who is an apartment management office, installed the measuring instrument in the station. Accordingly, the Defendant deemed that the act of the Plaintiff’s construction without approval of the market as provided in Article 32(1)3 of the Water Supply Ordinance, which was conducted by the Nonparty, who is an employee of the apartment management office, constitutes a case where construction works are conducted without any approval as provided in Article 34(1) and (2) of the Water Supply Ordinance, and the fact of imposition of a fine for negligence of KRW 3515.515
The plaintiff, as the cause of the plaintiff's claim, requested the above apartment management office to repair the broken water pipe to the above apartment management office because there were many cases of reporting the above apartment management office's failure. The non-party, who is an employee of the above apartment management office, erroneously installed the worn water pipe in the process of replacing the worn water pipe to a new pipe, and there is no reason for the plaintiff to be responsible for any negligence. Thus, the defendant's disposition of imposing a surcharge of KRW 253,55 won on the plaintiff is unlawful, but the person who intends to construct the above water supply facility under Article 6 of the above Ordinance shall request the Mayor in advance to obtain the approval of the above order of the non-party (the non-party's fine of negligence shall be imposed on the non-party's construction of the water supply facility, remodeling, removal of the water supply facility, etc.) without the approval of the non-party's order in the process of replacing the destroyed water pipe (the non-party's fine of negligence shall be imposed on the non-party's construction of the above water supply pipe).
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case based on the premise that the above administrative fine and the surcharge imposed by the defendant are illegal is dismissed as without merit, and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition.
Judges Kim Jae-chul (Presiding Judge)