A. The Plaintiff is a construction company that performs new construction works of 1,897 households in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant apartment site”) with the approval of the housing construction project plan from Ulsan Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant project”).

B. In order to install water supply facilities in the apartment of the instant apartment, the Plaintiff’s defect in the application for water supply construction; the Defendant calculated the costs of water supply facilities construction of the instant apartment, which is multi-family housing with at least 401 households, in accordance with the public announcement of the change in the cost of water supply of the fixed amount pursuant to the delegation under the Ulsan Metropolitan City Ordinance on Water Supply (hereinafter “instant Ordinance”) and Article 12(3) of the instant Ordinance (Ulsan Metropolitan City’s public notification D, June 7, 2012; hereinafter “instant public notification”).

Water supply construction cost 398,370,000 won (=210,000 won per household 】 1,897 households; hereinafter “instant water supply construction cost”) 481,838,000 won (=254,000 won per household x 1,897 households; hereinafter “instant facility contributions”) 68,90 won in total, 880,276,900 won in fees for the facility contributions

C. In approving the Plaintiff’s above application on August 11, 2015, the Defendant imposed KRW 880,276,90 in total, and fees for water supply construction costs, facility contributions, and fees calculated as above on the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”), and the Plaintiff paid them.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The public notice of this case regarding the part concerning the water supply construction cost among the disposition of this case 1 is unlawful against the purport of delegation of the ordinance of this case, the principle of proportionality, the principle of equality under the Constitution, the principle of cost burden, etc. As such, the defendant is based on the public notice of this case among the disposition of this case.