1. The plaintiff (appointed)'s claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff (designated parties; hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) and the designated parties (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiffs”) are running a brying professional bath business and a 24-hour public bath business in Incheon Metropolitan City.

B. On June 2017 through September 2017, the Defendant imposed a water supply and sewerage fee on the Plaintiffs on the basis of the water rate table in attached Table 2 of Article 28(1) of the Incheon Metropolitan City Ordinance on Water Supply (hereinafter “Water Supply Ordinance”), the classification table in attached Table 3, the Ordinance on the Use of Sewerage in Incheon Metropolitan City (hereinafter “the Sewerage Ordinance”), and the standards for calculating the public sewerage fee in attached Table 12(2) of Article 12(2) of the Water Supply Ordinance and the classification of the types of business.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, entry of Gap evidence No. 2 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The criteria for calculating the usage fees of public sewerage and the classification of types of business in attached Table 2, attached Table 3, and attached Table 1 of the Ordinance on Water Supply of the Plaintiff’s Claim, shall apply to general public bath business, but in the case of specialized public bath business or public bath business for 24 hours, the charges for the final stage rate shall be applied uniformly.

Each Ordinance of this case violates the Guidelines for Calculation of Local Waterworks Charges (No. 444 of the Ministry of the Interior and Safety established on January 2, 2013) and II. The Rules of the Ministry of the Interior and Safety (No. 444 of the Rules of the Ministry of the Interior and Safety) and the Guidelines for Calculation

Without reasonable grounds, there is discrimination against the plaintiffs, who are general public bath business operators, public bath business operators or public bath business operators of 24 hours of soup without reasonable grounds. Accordingly, it violates the principle of equality, or the plaintiffs, who are public bath business operators or public bath business operators of 24 hours of soup, are free to choose their occupation, business and freedom.