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

A. On June 11, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for the implementation of water supply construction works regarding the above ground restaurant building B (trade name: C; hereinafter “instant restaurant”) in Kim Jong-si, the Plaintiff owned by the Plaintiff.

B. On June 16, 2014, the Defendant: (a) on the Plaintiff’s June 16, 2014, the private road (private road, Kim Jong-si D; hereinafter “instant transit land”).

) The construction of water supply pipes is not possible in a normal condition without passing through the private road owner, so the owner of the private road notified that it would be able to implement the water supply system construction at a rapid and rapid time at the time of the week by submitting a written consent (the written consent to land use) after consultation with the owner of the private road.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant refusal disposition”). [Grounds for recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the rejection disposition of this case is legitimate

A. Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The restaurant of this case asserted that the Defendant’s refusal disposition of this case was unlawful on the ground that the Plaintiff did not consent of the co-owners of the transit land in this case requires tap water to be supplied in the area where the chickens was destroyed and buried with the dynasium. The Defendant rejected the water supply construction work on the ground of Article 7 of the Private Road Act and Articles 6 and 19(1) of the Kim Jong-si Water Supply Ordinance, which passed by the waterworks management authority, but it is merely an administrative convenient interpretation. If the above municipal ordinance requires the consent of the land owners via the above municipal ordinance, it is merely an administrative convenient interpretation, and if the above municipal ordinances violate Article 218(1) of the Civil Act and Article 60(1),2 and (3), and Article 61(2)7 of the Water Supply and Waterworks Installation Act and Article 218(1) of the Civil Act, and there is no need to give priority to the right to water supply facilities, and there is no consent of the land owners via the above land.