beta
(영문) 전주지방법원 군산지원 2018.01.23 2017가단1054

상하수도요금 반환

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

Basic Facts

From April 2, 2013, the Plaintiff has run a public bath business with the trade name “C Syna” in the building B located in the following cities (hereinafter “instant place of business”). According to the Ordinance on the Supply of Tap-si Water Supply and Waterworks (amended by Ordinance No. 1578, Jul. 15, 2016; hereinafter “instant Ordinance”), water rates are separately imposed for domestic use, general use, and public bath. Of them, in the case of running a public bath business, the Plaintiff imposed water rates for public bath business with a lower amount than “general use” but, even for general public bath business, the type of business concurrently operating other businesses, such as soup, is excluded from those subject to imposition for public bath.

(Article 26(1) and attached Table 3 of the Ordinance were amended on July 15, 2016, and the public bath business under the Public Health Control Act was revised to impose a fee on all of the public bath business.

Accordingly, the Defendant applied the rate of 314,817,30 won to the Plaintiff by June 2016, and imposed a total of 314,817,330 won on the instant workplace, and the Plaintiff paid all of them.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings by the plaintiff asserted the purport of the whole pleadings. Since the plaintiff was engaged in public bath business without making soup business until June 2016, the defendant should have imposed the water rate applied to the plaintiff with the rate for public bath, the defendant imposed the water rate applying the rate for public bath, and received it from the plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant should return to the plaintiff the amount equivalent to the difference calculated by applying the rate for public bath to the water rate paid to the plaintiff for general use.

However, according to the purport of the Ordinance of this case, the extinctive prescription of water rates shall be limited to three years, from February 2014 to the period within three years, counting from the time of filing the instant lawsuit.