1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim on the ground that since the plaintiff did not use the public sewerage system such as sewage and public sewage treatment plant, the defendant is obligated to return the fees already paid to the plaintiff for the use of the public sewerage system as unjust enrichment, there is no evidence to deem that the disposition of imposing the fees for the use of the public sewerage from December 2, 2005 to August 2006 alleged by the plaintiff was revoked and corrected. In light of all the circumstances, including the process of filing a civil complaint regarding the fees for the use of the public sewerage system imposed on the plaintiff, and the defendant's efforts to grasp the legal nature of the former waterway, it constitutes a case where the plaintiff's sewage flow can be clearly identified as a public sewerage system only if the plaintiff's sewage flow can be accurately examined. Thus, even if the defect that the plaintiff used the public sewerage system was grossly erroneous even if it did not use the public sewerage system, it cannot be deemed that the above disposition of imposing the

2. According to the relevant legal principles and records, the court below is just and acceptable to determine that the above disposition of taxation is not void as a matter of course, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the defect of administrative disposition.

3. However, it is difficult to accept the lower court’s determination that there is no evidence that the said disposition was revoked for the following reasons.

Article 65 (1) of the Sewerage Act provides that the collection of fees for the use of public sewerage shall be prescribed by municipal ordinance of the relevant local government. Article 29 of the Ordinance on the Use of Public Sewerage at Chicago-si provides that the imposition and collection of fees for the use of public sewerage shall follow the examples of the Local Tax Act, except as otherwise expressly provided for in the above Ordinance. < Amended by Act No. 1021