March 2, 2017

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s disposition imposing charges on the Plaintiff on February 24, 2016 shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

A. On June 11, 2007, the Sigjin 1 District Urban Development Project Association (hereinafter “instant industrial project”) approved an urban development plan and implementation plan based on land substitution method for the urban development project (hereinafter “instant urban development project”) with respect to the area of 266,310 square meters per day ( Address 1 omitted) in Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do (hereinafter “Yjin-do urban development zone”).

B. Around December 2011, the instant industrial cooperative was approved for the modification of the development plan and implementation plan of the instant urban development project. The main contents were that the development zone and area were partially modified, the total project cost was increased, and KRW 2,261,960,000, which was originally borne by the instant industrial cooperative, was changed to the burden of the individual owner.

C. Around October 2010, the Defendant filed an application with the Minister of Environment for authorization for a water supply project on the newly established construction of △△△ Village (hereinafter “instant water supply facility”) in order to supply tap water to the relevant housing site development project zone including the relevant housing site development zone. Around May 201, the Defendant obtained authorization for a water supply project and completed the said construction on or around December 2014.

D. On April 19, 2012, the High temperature Construction Co., Ltd. purchased approximately 26,632m2m2 (hereinafter “instant land”) from the Sinjin-si ( Address 2 omitted) within the Sinjin-si Urban Development Zone (hereinafter “instant land”). On November 29, 2012, the Plaintiff newly constructed the “○○○○○○○○○○ apartment building” (hereinafter “instant building”) on the instant land after completing the registration of ownership transfer after receiving payment in lieu of the instant land from the High temperature Construction Co., Ltd. and completing the registration of ownership transfer.

E. On February 23, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for approval of the implementation of water supply works in order to supply water supply to the instant building. On February 24, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition imposing 223,096,000 won on the Plaintiff based on Articles 5 and 6 of the Ordinance on the Collection of Charges on Charges on Charges for Charges on Responsible for Waterworks of the Siljin-si (hereinafter “instant Ordinance”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The burden of water supply under the Water Supply and Waterworks Installation Act imposes all or part of the cost on the person who incurred the cost of the installation or extension of the waterworks. The instant water supply facility, which is the object of the instant disposition, is not newly constructed but already installed since it is not a new construction of the instant building, and thus, it is illegal to impose the burden of water supply on the person who incurred the burden on the water supply facility.

2) Since the instant water services facilities were installed due to the instant urban development project, the amount borne by the responsible person should be imposed on the Plaintiff, which is a building owner, who is not the project owner, even though the instant urban development project implementer, provided the cause of the cost incurred in performing the construction of the water services facilities. The instant disposition imposing the burden on

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) As to the plaintiff's first argument

The instant waterworks was newly established due to the instant urban development project, and the facts that the instant waterworks subject to the instant disposition is the instant waterworks do not conflict between the parties. However, as the instant urban development plan was amended to impose the burden of borne by the Defendant on the individual owner, the Defendant appears to impose the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant urban development project, without imposing the charge of the water supply burden on the project implementer of the instant urban development project. Ultimately, it is reasonable to deem that the instant disposition imposed the charge on the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant building. As such, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit on the premise that the instant disposition is the charge for the installation cost of the existing waterworks.

2) As to the second argument by the Plaintiff

A) Article 71 of the Water Supply and Waterworks Installation Act provides for the burden-bearing charges, and Article 71 of the same Act provides, “A waterworks business operator may have a person who has incurred expenses for the construction of waterworks (including a person who has caused the construction or extension of waterworks facilities using a large number of tap water, such as a housing complex and industrial facilities, etc.) bear all or part of the expenses incurred for the construction of waterworks.”

The purpose of the water supply burden burden is to impose the cost on the person who caused the new construction or expansion of water supply by causing the demand for water for living. Thus, in the case of an urban development project such as this case, the actual person who caused the expansion of water supply facilities is not the operator of the relevant urban development project and the owner of a building constructed a new building after obtaining the land within the project district, unless there are special circumstances. Therefore, in the case where a building is constructed in accordance with the size and use stipulated in the relevant project plan on the land created by an urban development project operator through an urban development project, the burden borne by the project operator shall be in principle borne by the project operator. Unless there are special circumstances such as the building exceeding the planned scope of the project, the owner of the building, etc. shall not be separately borne by the burden burden (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Du7604, Oct. 11, 2012). The above Supreme Court decision is related to the burden borne by the sewerage under the Sewerage Act or the burden borne by the water supply under the Water Supply and Waterworks Act.

As to the instant case, the Plaintiff is merely an individual owner who newly constructed a building on a part of the land in the instant urban development zone, and is not an implementer of the instant urban development project, and cannot be deemed to fall under “a person who incurred expenses for waterworks construction” under Article 71(1) of the Water Supply and Waterworks Installation Act. Therefore, the instant disposition against which the Plaintiff imposed an amount borne by the Plaintiff due to the instant urban development project is unlawful.

B) As to this, the Defendant asserts that according to the standards for imposing charges on the Plaintiff under Article 4(1) [Attachment 1] of the instant Ordinance, the instant disposition imposing charges on the Plaintiff based on the provisions of the instant Ordinance, which imposes charges on each individual act in the district, shall not be imposed on an urban development project based on the replotting method, but on each individual act in the district (hereinafter “relevant part of the instant Ordinance”), according to the standards for imposing charges on the Plaintiff.

Article 71 of the Water Supply and Waterworks Installation Act delegates to the Presidential Decree the criteria, etc. for calculating the amount borne by borne by borne persons. Accordingly, Article 65 of the Enforcement Decree of the Water Supply and Waterworks Installation Act lists items of expenses that constitute the amount borne by borne persons (Article 65(3)), and delegates the detailed standards necessary for calculating each item to the ordinances of the relevant local government (Article 6(6). According to this, the Ordinance of the relevant local government can only determine “the subject and scope of the amount borne by borne persons” as prescribed by the Water Supply and Waterworks Installation Act and the detailed standards necessary for calculating the amount borne by borne persons” as prescribed by the Enforcement Decree of the Water Supply and Waterworks Installation Act within the scope of

As seen earlier, the burden-bearing entity with respect to the newly established waterworks under Article 71 of the Water Supply and Waterworks Installation Act is invalid since the relevant part of the Ordinance of this case, which stipulates that the burden-bearing entity shall be imposed on the owner of each of the facilities within the urban development zone, although it falls under only the project implementer in the case of an urban development project, shall be imposed on the owner of the building of each of the facilities within the urban development zone, although it is the person who caused the occurrence

Therefore, since the disposition of this case based on the invalid municipal ordinance is illegal, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance with the same conclusion is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

[Attachment]

The judge's seat (Presiding Judge) Ma-hee Park Jong-hee