2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

On December 2, 2011, the Plaintiff is running a lease business by constructing a total of 59 households Ctel (hereinafter “instant building”).

From April 2017, the Plaintiff raised an objection to the head of the Water Supply Headquarters North Korea (hereinafter referred to as the “the head of the North Korea Branch”) of Busan Metropolitan City Waterworks Headquarters to measure the excessive amount of water usage of the instant building.

On December 9, 2017, the Director of the North Korean Business Center installed a test measuring instrument (25m m m sponsing) on the side of the mpacker (15m m sprinking) of the instant building, notified the Plaintiff on June 4, 2018 that “the sprinking measuring instruments are operating normally as a result of the analysis of the volume of water used for waterworks use,” and removed the said test measuring instrument on June 11, 2018.

The Director of the North Korean Business Center, from February 2018 to October 2019, imposed monthly water supply and drainage charges on the Plaintiff on the instant building.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). Meanwhile, pursuant to Article 23(1) of the Water Supply and Waterworks Installation Act, Article 35(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 39(1) and 39(2)13 of the Busan Metropolitan City Ordinance on Water Supply and Waterworks (hereinafter “the instant Ordinance”), the Defendant delegated matters concerning the imposition of water charges to the director of the North Korean Business Center.

[Reasons for Recognition] The Plaintiff’s disposition of this case as to the lawfulness of the disposition of this case as to whether the disposition of this case is legitimate or not, should be revoked on the grounds that the following illegal grounds exist: (a) facts without dispute; (b) Gap 1, 5, 6 evidence; and (c) Eul 1 and 3 evidence (including evidence number; hereinafter the same shall apply).

“Comparison between the quantity of measuring instruments for inspection and testing for use” prepared by the defendant's personnel in charge of the defendant's side has no content of comparison and analysis for December 2, 2017, January 2018, and June. Since it is a numerical value prepared without any ground for March 2018, April 201, it is difficult to believe the content thereof.

The plaintiff reported excessive water rate for October and December 2017 to the defendant in charge, but the defendant will take subsequent measures after the performance test of measuring instruments.