According to the reasoning of the judgment below, on April 1, 1980, the plaintiff applied for water supply construction works through pipes and pumping apparatus for the underground floor, machinery room, and the first and second-class toilets each Dong with the consent of "B", which are located in the village main apartment located in Gangdong-gu Seoul ( Address omitted) on Apr. 1, 1980, with the approval of the defendant, for water supply construction works after connecting the pipes from the water supply pipes in the above underground floor room to the above 22 stores without the approval of the defendant. The court below recognized that the water supply construction works are conducted without permission by connecting the pipes from the water supply pipes in the above underground floor room in the first and second-class stores without the approval of the defendant's disposal without the approval of the above 34 (1) of the Water Supply Ordinance, "in case where the tenant was exempted from the collection of charges or other fees by fraud or other unlawful means" as provided in the above Article 34 (1) of the Water Supply Ordinance, and thus the water supply construction works are illegal.

However, "the case where the water supply facility operator is exempted from the collection of charges or other fees by fraud or other improper means" in Article 34 (1) of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Water Supply Ordinance includes not only the case where the person who has obtained approval for the use of the water supply and has duly exempted the collection of the charges by unlawful means, but also the case where the person who has lawfully installed the water supply facility by obtaining approval for the use of the water supply facility and has not obtained approval for the use of the water supply facility makes the additional construction of the water supply facility by improper means such as linking the water supply pipe to other water supply pipes prior to the passing of the water meter.

Therefore, the court below's determination of the above facts and the decision that the plaintiff's act does not fall under Article 34 (1) of the above Ordinance is incomplete or it is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of application of the above Ordinance, and the appeal pointing this out has merit, so the judgment of the court below shall not be maintained.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is entirely reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)