[수도료추징금등부과처분취소][공1979.6.15.(610),11858]
Whether or not an intentional negligence is required for the establishment of an administrative order crime.
Administrative order punishment is a punishment that sets up an objective fact in order to maintain administrative order, and thus, it does not require intention or negligence in the establishment of administrative order punishment unless there is a special provision.
Articles 126, 128, and 130 of the Local Autonomy Act, Articles 28, 29, and 2 subparag. 5 of the Seoul Metropolitan Government Water Supply Ordinance
Supreme Court Order 70Ma703 Decided October 31, 1970
[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.
Attorney Kim Chang-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant
Seoul High Court Decision 76Gu613 delivered on February 2, 1978
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. Around September 24, 1967, the lower court recognized that the Plaintiff owned the building of 13 stories underground from Jongno-gu ( Address omitted) to 17.1. around November 1967, and obtained a license for accommodation business (nort business) with the 10th floor of the above building in the name of 1967.1.4, up to 197, the Plaintiff started business with 200, and allowed Nonparty 3 to lease the said 1 to 3, and caused Nonparty 6 to lease the said 7th floor and run the said leisure business by setting the water supply pipe to 9.7, the Plaintiff’s owner of the above 1,300 water supply pipe installed for the above 17th floor to 17th floor and supplied the above 9th floor to the 197th floor with water supply pipe installed for the above 197th floor through the above 197th floor, and the Plaintiff’s duty to supply the water supply pipe to 26th floor through the so-called water supply water supply water supply pipe 2.
In light of the record, we affirm and accept the fact-finding measures of the court below, and there is no violation of documentary evidence such as theory of litigation.
2. With respect to a fine for negligence as stipulated in Article 128 of the Local Autonomy Act, it is interpreted as a kind of administrative order punishment in form, given that it is collected objection and released from the office in accordance with Article 130 of the same Act, and such administrative order punishment is a punishment imposed on the objective facts for the purpose of maintaining administrative order, and therefore, it does not require intention or negligence in principle unless there is a special provision (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 70Ma703, Oct. 31, 1970; 70Ma703, Oct. 31, 1970); and such order punishment is not a real offender, but a person who is defined as a legal responsible person. Accordingly, in this regard, the court below's decision that the owner of the building in this case is the water-supply user, and the lessee who is a part of the building lessor, is liable to pay the fine for negligence in accordance with the Water-Supply Ordinance. It is just and there is no misapprehension of legal principles as the theory of lawsuit
Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and the costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Jeong Tae-won (Presiding Justice)