[과태료부과처분취소][공1990.2.1(865),292]
(a) Scope of persons subject to the imposition of fines for negligence under Article 34 (1) through (3) of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Water Supply Ordinance and Article 29 (1) and (2) of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance
(b) Whether there exists a legal binding under Article 38 subparagraph 3 of the Regulations on the Management of Water Services and Water Services and Water Services and Article 27 subparagraph 3 and 2 of the Regulations on the Management of Water Services and Water Services;
A. According to the purport of Article 130(2) of the Local Autonomy Act and Article 34(1) through (3) of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Water Supply Ordinance enacted based thereon, and Article 29(1) and Article 29(2) of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Sewerage Use Ordinance, a person subject to a fine for negligence shall be limited to a person who involved in, or engaged in, a wrongful act committed by a person who committed a fraudulent act (or a fraudulent act) or a person who committed such unlawful act. Therefore, even if the owner of a building liable to pay water supply charges, if he/she is the owner of a
B. Article 38 subparag. 3 of the Regulations on Water Supply and Disciplinary Work, and Article 27(3)2 of the Regulations on Water Supply and Disciplinary Work, are merely an internal work guidelines within an administrative agency without any legal basis and are not legally binding.
(b)Article 130(2) of the Local Autonomy Act, Article 34(1) through (3) of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Water Supply Ordinance, Article 29(1) and Article 29(2) of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Sewerage Use Ordinance;
Supreme Court Decision 78Nu369 Delivered on November 28, 1978
Plaintiff
The head of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government
Seoul High Court Decision 88Gu8694 delivered on July 10, 1989
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
1. The court below held that there is no evidence to deem that the plaintiff committed a fraudulent act, such as misappropriation of water supply by performing the construction of illegal water supply facilities in the building of this case at the time of the Won-si, or that the non-party, who is the lessee of the building, participated in such unlawful act as stated in its reasoning. In light of the records, the above measures of the court below are justified and
2. Article 130 (2) of the Local Autonomy Act provides that a person who is exempted from the collection of fees, fees, or contributions by fraud or other improper means shall be punished by a fine for negligence not exceeding five times the amount exempted from such collection; a person who illegally uses public facilities shall be punished by a fine for negligence not exceeding 50,000 won; Article 34 (1) of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Water Supply Ordinance based on such delegation provision and Article 29 (2) of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Water Supply Ordinance provides that a person who is exempted from the collection of charges or other fees by fraud or other improper means shall be punished by a fine for negligence not exceeding five times the amount exempted from such collection, and Article 34 (2) of the Water Supply Ordinance and Article 29 (1) of the Sewerage Ordinance provide that a person who is exempt from the collection of a fine for negligence shall be punished by a fine for negligence not exceeding five times the amount of a fine for negligence imposed upon him/her and a person who has not been subject to the imposition of a fine for negligence shall be punished by a change in the above provision and other unlawful means of water supply.
(See Supreme Court Decision 78Nu369 delivered on November 28, 1978)
In the same purport, the decision of the court below is justified in the revocation of the imposition of the administrative fine of this case, which the defendant reported the plaintiff as a joint obligor for administrative fine at the time of original sale based on the above administrative affairs regulation, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit. There
3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Yoon So-young (Presiding Justice)