Persons subject to administrative fines under the Seoul Metropolitan Government Water Supply Ordinance;

According to the purport of Article 130(2) of the Local Autonomy Act and Article 34(1) and (2) of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Water Supply Ordinance, a person subject to a fine for negligence shall be deemed to be limited to a person who involved in or engaged in an unlawful act committed by a person and a person who committed such unlawful act committed by such person by fraud or other improper means. Therefore, even if the owner of a building liable to pay water supply charges, etc. is the owner of a building that

Article 130(2) of the Local Autonomy Act, Articles 34(1) and 34(2) of the Seoul Metropolitan Government Water Supply Ordinance

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Lee Do-young et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellee)

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han-sung, Counsel for defendant-appellee

Seoul Gangnam Water Service Director (Attorney Kim Sung-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu32878 delivered on July 21, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate brief).

Article 130(2) of the Local Autonomy Act provides that a person who is exempted from the collection of usage fees, fees, or contributions by fraud or other improper means shall be punished by a fine for negligence not exceeding five times the amount exempted from the collection thereof, and a fine for negligence not exceeding five hundred thousand won may be prescribed by a municipal ordinance for a person who illegally uses public facilities. Article 34(1) of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Water Supply Ordinance based on delegation shall be punished by a fine for negligence not exceeding five times the amount exempted from the collection in addition to the collection of the exempted amount, for a person who is exempted from the collection of charges or other fees by fraud or other improper means. Article 130(2) of the same Act provides that a person who commits unlawful acts such as facilitating the evasion of usage fees by mixing water supply between different fields of business may be punished by a fine for negligence not exceeding five hundred thousand won. According to the purport of each of the above provisions, the person subject to the fine for negligence shall be limited to a person who participated in, or committed such unlawful acts by a person who committed such unlawful act, and thus, even if the owner is not liable for the above nine 19.

The reasoning of the judgment below is examined in light of the records. The court below is justified in holding that the plaintiff's water storage of Class 1 tap water installed on the underground floor of the building of this case and the boundary walls between Class 5 tap water and the water storage tanks of this case are excavated for the same purpose as stated in its reasoning, and the interior walls of Class 5 tap water have been removed to automatically adjust the water storage tank to a certain level. However, there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff actually used the water storage tank of Class 5 tap water to make water flow into the water storage tank of Class 1 tap water through the hole of the above wall, and there is no ground to prove that the plaintiff cannot be seen as "the person who was exempted from the collection of charges or other fees by fraud or other unlawful means" as stipulated in the above Water Supply Ordinance, and there is no violation of law such as theory. And there is no ground to hold that the plaintiff's fine for negligence is collected, as well as the fine for negligence is collected.

In addition, the court below denied the fact that the Plaintiff used water supply by unlawful means and found the Defendant’s imposition disposition, such as the fine of this case, against the Plaintiff. Thus, even if the Plaintiff did not have a direct intention or negligence on the Plaintiff’s unlawful act, the Plaintiff should be held liable for the fine of administrative order punishment as a matter of course. In light of Article 30(2) of the above Water Supply Ordinance, the owner, etc. of the water supply facilities may not be exempted from the liability prescribed in this Ordinance on the ground that the Plaintiff’s act was not a self-act. In light of the above, the court below’s argument to the effect that the Plaintiff cannot be exempted from the liability for the fine of this case solely on the ground that the Plaintiff was not a real actor of such unlawful act.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)