[2] The meaning of "Fraud and other unlawful means" under Article 33 (1) of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Waterworks Ordinance and Article 29 (2) of the Sewerage Use Ordinance

[3] The case holding that the act of receiving tap water by connecting the water supply pipes with the artificial water supply pipes of the emergency water reservoir for fire-fighting without installing water pumps or water meters does not constitute "Fraud or other unlawful means" under Article 33 (1) of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Waterworks Ordinance and Article 29 (2) of the Sewerage Use Ordinance

[2] The fine for negligence not exceeding five times the amount exempted from the completion of waterworks supply or the collection of sewage fee as stipulated in Article 33 (1) of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on Waterworks and Article 29 (2) of the above Ordinance on Sewerage Use is imposed on "a person who is exempted from the completion of waterworks supply or the collection of waterworks user fee by fraudulent or other unlawful means" and in imposing the fine for negligence, it should be recognized that the person exempted from the completion of waterworks supply or the collection of waterworks user fee by unlawful means. The "Fraud or other unlawful means" in this context refers to a person who falls under subparagraphs 2 through 7 of Article 31 of the above Ordinance on Waterworks (in the case of the completion of waterworks supply) or a person who uses public sewage without permission as stipulated in Article 29 of the above Ordinance on Sewerage Use, and it is considerably difficult to impose or collect waterworks user fee or other unlawful means as a result of a fraudulent act which enables it to be considerably difficult to do.

[3] The case holding that even if the water was supplied with tap water by connecting the strings to the artificial water pipe of the emergency water tank for fire-fighting without installing the water meter or the water meter, it does not constitute "Fraud or other unlawful means" under Article 33 (1) of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Waterworks Ordinance and Article 29 (2) of the Sewerage Use Ordinance on the ground that it is difficult to see that any active misconduct more than the method of treating the water supply has occurred on the ground that the string connected to the water pipe is not the water supply facilities, but the water supply pipe is merely the water supply facility, but the water supply pipe

2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims are all dismissed.

3. Three-minutes of the litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiffs, and the remainder shall be borne by the defendant.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and No. 9, 12

(a)The Plaintiff Gold Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “gold Industry”) is the contractor who has been awarded a contract from the Seoul subway Construction Headquarters for construction works of the Seoul subway Line 6-1 Section, including non-wides, and the Plaintiff Youngjin Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “ Youngjin Construction Co., Ltd.”) is the contractor who has been awarded a contract from the Plaintiff Gold Industry for the installation of facilities for cooling and fire prevention of the above non-wides.

B. On November 9, 200, public officials belonging to the defendant discovered the fact that tap water is illegally supplied without permission without permission without using 50mm, rubber 20m length and 20m length, which are installed within the construction site (hereinafter referred to as the "construction site of this case"), 50, 30, 50, 60, 30, 130, 20, 50, 60, 50, 60, 60, 60, 60, 60, 30, 60, 60, 50, 60, 60, 60, 30, 60, 60, 50, 60, 60, 60, 60, 30, 60, 60, 50, 60, 60, 60, 60, 60, 60, 205, 60, 60, 10, 6, 20, 6, 30

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

(1) The Seoul City Waterworks Ordinance separates the latter from the latter by fraud or other improper means, and imposes a fine for negligence not exceeding five times the amount exempted from the collection in addition to the collection of the exempted amount. On the other hand, in the case of the former, only the fine for negligence not exceeding 500,000 won shall be imposed. However, it is unclear whether the two are distinct. Thus, the above Municipal Ordinance does not have a clear provision as to how the two are distinct, and thus, it is not effective as the basis provision of the fine for negligence division.

(2)The supply of tap water through the above stack merely is a device that simply deducts tap water from the supply of the water. It does not constitute "the person who is exempted from the collection of the water supply completion or the collection of the sewage fee by fraudulent or other unlawful means, subject to an administrative fine not exceeding five times the amount exempted from the water supply completion or the sewage fee as provided by the above water supply ordinances or the sewage use ordinances."

(3) From October 20 to October 20, 200, the number of people working at the construction site of this case, after leaving thens near the place of accommodation, they used water stored in the above emergency water reservoir for the purpose of screen. At the same time, materials such as steel bars in the place of emergency water reservoir such as steel bars could not be supplied through the artificial water supply pipe of emergency water reservoir. Since the work process does not require the work process, the starting point of the illegal water supply period should be deemed not to be October 20, 199, but the starting point of the work period should be deemed to be October 20, 200, and since there was no perception that the water supply system was exempted by any unlawful means since the water supply system was installed in the past.

(4) In each of the dispositions of this case, the Defendant estimated water supply and water supply by applying the criteria for water supply hours and water supply volume per day as stipulated by the Enforcement Rule of the Seoul Metropolitan Government Ordinance. However, the standard prescribed by the above Enforcement Rule is arbitraryly stipulated to disregard the actual amount of water supply and calculate the maximum amount of water use without any grounds. Therefore, it is unlawful as well as an error of failing to present the fee per cubic meter even when notifying the details of the collection charges for water supply completion and the calculation of water supply charges.

(5) Even if the imposition of the charge for water supply and the charge for sewage based on the estimated quantity of household water supply is legitimate, the imposition of the fine for negligence is in violation of the law that excessively deviates from or abused the discretion.

B. Relevant statutes

See Attached List.

C. Facts of recognition

[Evidence] Evidence Nos. 2, 4 and 5, Evidence Nos. 6-1, 2, 8, 10, 13, 14, 16, 18, 25, 26, Evidence No. 11, Evidence Nos. 8-1 through 4, Evidence Nos. 9, 10, Evidence Nos. 11-1 through 5, Evidence No. 13, Evidence Nos. 14-1, 14-2, Evidence No. 15-1 through 4, Evidence Nos. 16, 17, and 18-1, Part of Testimony No. 2, and Evidence No. 11, and all purport of oral pleadings

(1) From September 1999, the Plaintiff Youngjin Co., Ltd. subcontracted to the construction site of this case for the installation of air conditioners for the installation of air conditioners (this seems to be a labor contract) from the Seoul subway Co., Ltd. to the construction site of this case from September 6, 199 (the Plaintiff Youngjin Co., Ltd.’s construction contract). Although the construction period is specified from October 21, 199 to April 15, 200, the Plaintiff Youngjin Co., Ltd started the construction site of this case from September 1999 to the time when illegal water supply was discovered, it is difficult to believe the contents on the construction period under the above construction contract as it is, as long as the Plaintiff Youngjin Co., Ltd. performed construction work at the construction site of this case, the Plaintiff Gold Co., Ltd. installed water supply pipes and neighboring water supply pipes to the construction site of this case after obtaining approval from the Defendant of the above non-economic metropolitan Co. 3 (the construction contract).

(2) On November 7, 200, at the construction site of this case where the plaintiffs were in charge of the plaintiffs on November 7, 200, the new motive for the public officials belonging to the defendant discovered that the workers did not go through the water meter or water pumping apparatus to the artificial water supply pipes of the emergency water reservoir. (b) At the time of the installation of the non-emergency water reservoir, the plaintiff's office was confirmed to have used the above non-emergency water tank and artificial water supply pipe in connection with the rubber facility in this case, and it was discovered that the plaintiff's office was installed in the construction site of this case, and the plaintiff's office was found that the plaintiff's construction site of this case was used by connecting the above non-emergency water reservoir and artificial water supply pipe, and was found to have been used by the rubber facility in the artificial water pipe at the time of the installation of the non-emergency water reservoir (the plaintiff No. 9, No. 2, and the plaintiff No. 92, the plaintiff No. 99 was the plaintiff No.

After that, the defendant confirmed that the above emergency water tank was installed and completed on October 20, 199 in the process of giving prior notice based on the above person's written notice, and then the above date was deemed as the commencement date of illegal water supply and the measure of this case was taken by estimating and calculating the irregular water supply volume.

(3) The above emergency water tank is located between two in the exchange organization of the above non-economic region located at approximately 1.3 meters above the ground and about 4.9 meters above, and the entrance water supply pipe connected to the valve (see, e.g., evidence 14 and 15, respectively). The water level of the above emergency water reservoir as of November 9, 1999, immediately after the removal of illegal water supply facilities due to the detection of the new motor, was reduced to about 1m above at the time of the detection, and at the time of the investigation on March 19, 201, the water tank was not stored in the water tank with the water tank stored.

(4) Meanwhile, the Plaintiffs did not have installed temporary water supply facilities of this case with the approval of the Seoul Metropolitan City Mayor during the construction site, and did not file an application for temporary use of sewerage with the competent office of Eunpyeong-gu.

(5) On February 5, 2001, the construction work of the non-economic region and its ancillary facilities was completed at the construction site of this case. When the plaintiffs implemented the construction work at the construction site of this case, the work section was composed of double trials and packaging sides, and the amount of dust generated at the time of the Plaintiff Youngjin Construction Project by generating earth and sand by using caters, and there was a lot of materials such as steel bars around the roads and India around the above emergency water reservoir.

(d) Markets:

(i)whether the imposition of water supply completion, water use charges and sewerage usage charges is legitimate;

(A) Each provision of Article 28 [Attachment 3] and [Attachment 6] of the Enforcement Rule of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Method of Calculating Water Quantity is defined as a supplementary method to calculate the quantity of tap water actually used in the vicinity as possible in preparation for cases where it is difficult to calculate the quantity of tap water due to failure to install water measuring instruments or water pumping apparatus, etc. when the Mayor recognizes the quantity of water to be used in accordance with Article 22(6) [Attachment 2] and [Attachment 6] of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on Waterworks concerning the Method of Calculating Water Quantity. Thus, it cannot be deemed as a invalid provision which conflicts with the provisions of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on Waterworks, or does not have any ground for delegation. Thus, if the water supply quantity per hour or daily water supply time is clearly revealed, the quantity of water to be used can be calculated according to the above provision (see Supreme Court Decision 96Nu1283 delivered on August 29, 197).

(B) Regarding this case, it is recognized that the plaintiffs were supplied with tap water by connecting the above emergency water supply tanks to the artificial water supply pipes of the 10th construction site without legitimate installation during the construction period of the above 10th construction site, and that the water supply pipes of the above 10th construction site was supplied with tap water without permission from the head of the competent Gu. It is recognized that the head of the construction site of this case was supplied with tap water by connecting the above emergency water supply tanks from the time when the above emergency water supply tanks were discovered at the time of discovery of the 10th construction site to the above 9th construction site by the public official's duress of the above 90th construction site (the plaintiffs signed the above 9th construction site Kim Jong-soo's 9th construction site by the above 9th construction site's coercion and the above 9th construction site's 9th construction site's 9th construction site's 9th construction site's 9th construction site's 9th construction site's 9th construction site's 9th construction site's 9th construction site'

Therefore, inasmuch as there is no objective and clear evidence to acknowledge the quantity of tap water actually illegally used without any separate water measuring instrument to measure the quantity of tap water supplied through a lake connected to the artificial water supply pipes of an emergency water reservoir as above, for the period from October 20, 199 to November 8, 200, the day before the illegal water supply site is discovered, the amount of tap water supplied illegally in accordance with the method prescribed in Article 28 (5) 2 of the Enforcement Rule of the above Water Ordinance shall be estimated for the period from October 20, 199 to November 2, 200. Considering the estimated volume of tap water supplied as wastewater discharged, the amount of tap water supplied illegally in accordance with the method prescribed in Article 28 (5) 2 of the above Ordinance shall be calculated by applying the water rate table and the water use rate table under Article 15 [Attachment 2] of the above Ordinance on the Use of Water and calculating the water use charges and the water use charges on which the Defendant did not inform the plaintiffs of the extent of the reasons for the disposition and the water use charges of this case.

(2) Whether the imposition of a fine for negligence is lawful

(A) A fine for negligence not exceeding five times the amount exempted from the completion of waterworks supply or the collection of sewerage user fees as stipulated in Article 33(1) of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on Waterworks and Article 29(2) of the above Ordinance on Waterworks Use is imposed on "a person who is exempted from the completion of waterworks supply or the collection of waterworks user fees by fraudulent or other unlawful means" and in imposing a fine for negligence, it should be recognized that the person exempted from the completion of waterworks supply or the collection of waterworks user fees by unlawful means. "Fraud or other unlawful means" in this context refers to a person who falls under subparagraphs 2 through 7 of Article 31 of the above Ordinance on Waterworks (in the case of the completion of waterworks supply) or a person who uses water supply without permission under Article 29 of the above Ordinance on Waterworks Use and thus, an act of using water supply systems or other unlawful methods which clearly cause damage to water supply or other unlawful methods, such as an act of using water supply systems or other unlawful methods, and thus, it can be seen as an act of using water supply systems or other unlawful methods.

As to the instant case, even though the Plaintiffs were supplied with tap water by connecting the ices to the artificial water pipe of the emergency water reservoir for fire-fighting without installing water pumps or water meters as seen earlier, it is difficult to view that any active misconduct more than a method of treating water supply has occurred because the ice connected to the water pipe is not the water supply facilities but the water supply facilities, and it is merely the device that deducts the tap water, so it is difficult to view that any active misconduct more than a method of treating the water supply has occurred. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs’ act of supplying and using the water without permission shall not be deemed to fall under the subject of an administrative fine not exceeding five times the amount of the water supply completion or

(B) Even if the plaintiffs were to use the above unlawful methods by connecting the water supply pipes with the artificial water supply pipes of non-emergency water tanks without permission, the administrative fines imposed on the "person exempted from the completion of water supply supply or the collection of sewage usage fees by fraudulent or other unlawful means" under the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on Waterworks and Sewerage Use Ordinance is placed at the discretion of the imposing authority (the same shall apply to the imposition of the basic administrative fines imposed on the "person who stolen water supply" as seen below). In this case, it is legitimate to calculate the water supply completion and sewage usage fees by estimating the illegal water supply volume as seen above, but it is merely due to the lack of clearly revealed water supply time or the water supply time per day during the illegal water supply period. The plaintiffs' excessive amount of the administrative fines imposed on the above construction site as well as the amount of the administrative fines imposed on the plaintiff's excessive water supply at the work site and the amount of the fine for negligence imposed on the neighboring construction site, and it seems that the plaintiffs' excessive amount of the fine for negligence imposed on the plaintiff's non-public water supply source and it appears to be illegal.

(c)In contrast, if the Defendant imposes an administrative fine of KRW 500,000 (total of KRW 1,000,000) on the Plaintiffs separately from the imposition of an administrative fine of KRW 5 times the amount of the above water supply completion or the exemption of the sewage fee on the use of the public sewerage without the Plaintiffs’ illegal water supply and permission, it shall not be deemed that the Defendant abused the discretion entrusted to the imposing authority in light of the Plaintiffs’ unauthorized water supply period, unauthorized water supply method, etc.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the imposition of a fine for negligence and a fine for negligence for negligence on the water supply system completion, excluding the above basic fine, among the dispositions of this case, is unlawful, it is revoked, and the plaintiffs' claim seeking the revocation of the remaining dispositions is dismissed as it is so decided as per

Judges Han-soo (Presiding Judge)