On the third ground for appeal

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records and evidence, the fact-finding and judgment of the court below on the part of the plaintiff as the ground of appeal is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts due to the violation of the rules of evidence or the failure to exhaust all necessary deliberations. In the end, we cannot accept the judgment of the court below as it is merely an error of the misunderstanding of the facts

With respect to the first and second points

Article 130 of the Local Autonomy Act provides for matters concerning the collection of charges, commissions or contributions by Municipal Ordinance (paragraph (1)), and for those who are exempted from the collection of fines for negligence by deceit or other unlawful means, the provisions governing fines for negligence not exceeding five times the amount exempted from such collection may be prescribed by Municipal Ordinance (paragraph (2)); Article 34 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Water Supply Ordinance under the delegation of the same Act provides for the imposition of fines for negligence not exceeding five times the amount exempted from such collection (paragraph (1)); Article 32 (1) 8 (limited to paragraph (1) of the same Article) of the former Enforcement Rule; Article 32 (2) of the same Act provides for the imposition of fines for negligence not exceeding seven times for negligence by fraud or other unlawful means; Article 32 (1) 1 of the same Act provides for the imposition of fines for negligence not exceeding seven times in calculating the amount of fines for negligence not exceeding five times for negligence; Article 9 (2) of the former Enforcement Rule provides for the imposition of fines for negligence not exceeding five times the amount of fine for negligence not exceeding nine days (2).

In full view of the above provisions of Article 13(3)2 of the Water Supply Regulations and attached Table 2 of the above [Attachment Table 3] and each of the above [Attachment Table 3] of the Water Supply Regulations concerning the method of calculating water supply are defined as a supplementary method to calculate the amount of tap water actually used as close as possible in preparation for cases where it is difficult to calculate the amount of tap water actually used due to the failure, installation, etc. of the water transferee. Thus, it cannot be deemed as a invalid provision which goes against the above Water Supply Ordinance or does not have any ground for delegation. Therefore, in a case where the water supply time or daily water supply time is clearly revealed, it is not necessary to calculate the amount of water use according to the above provisions, but rather to calculate the amount of water use. However, if the water supply time per hour or daily water supply time is not clearly identified, it shall be deemed that the amount of water use can be calculated pursuant to the above provisions.

In the same purport, with regard to the supply of tap water supplied as Class 2 for business use by the plaintiff to South and North Korea through the old-gu illegal water supply pipes, swimming pools, shower rooms, and Turkey, the court below held that the Defendant’s calculation of the quantity of tap water illegally supplied in accordance with the method prescribed in Article 13(3)2 of the Water Supply Regulations is justifiable, and there is no illegality in law as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal, since the water supplied as a type 2 for business use through the second-class water supply pipes and through the illegal water supply pipes is not separately installed, and there is no other evidence to recognize the quantity of tap water actually used.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)