4,000,000 won (Law Firm Mail et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Ulsan Metropolitan City Mayor (Law Firm International, Attorneys Ha Man-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

November 5, 2004

Ulsan District Court Decision 2002Guhap107 Delivered on September 25, 2002

1. Of the judgment below on October 13, 2001, the part against the defendant ordering cancellation of the amount exceeding KRW 1,219,80,80,384,301, and gold 1,373,596,870, out of the imposition of the amount borne by the burden of imposing KRW 3,557,883,090 against the land rearrangement association of the 3,057,883,090, which was made against the land rearrangement association of the 3,090, and the land rearrangement association of the 1,219,808,001, among the imposition of the burden of imposing the burden of imposing the burden of KRW 1,219,80,00 against the land rearrangement association of the 3,57,883,09, and the corresponding part against the defendant is dismissed, respectively.

2. The plaintiffs' appeal and the defendant's remaining appeals are dismissed, respectively.

3. The total cost of a lawsuit shall be borne by the said plaintiffs, for seven minutes between the Plaintiff, the land zone rearrangement cooperative, the land zone rearrangement cooperative and the Defendant, and the remaining expenses shall be borne by the said plaintiffs, while the remaining expenses shall be borne by the Defendant, and the expenses shall be borne by the said plaintiffs between the Plaintiff, the land rearrangement cooperative, the land rearrangement cooperative, the land rearrangement cooperative, the land rearrangement cooperative, the land rearrangement cooperative of the mountain zone, and the Defendant.

1. Purport of claim

As of October 13, 2001, the Defendant revoked the imposition of an amount of KRW 1,125,249,280 against the Plaintiff’s Land Partitioning Association (hereinafter referred to as the “Saero District Partitioning Association”), KRW 3,557,883,090 against the Plaintiff’s Land Partitioning Association (hereinafter referred to as the “Saero Two”) and the imposition of an amount of KRW 1,373,596,870 against the Plaintiff’s Land Partitioning Association (hereinafter referred to as the “Saeronam”) against the Plaintiff’s Land Partitioning Association, the imposition of an amount of KRW 1,684,586,80 against the Plaintiff’s Land Partitioning Association (hereinafter referred to as the “Saero District Association”), and the imposition of an amount of charges on each of the charges shall be revoked on the 23th of the same month.

2. Purport of appeal

Plaintiffs: The judgment of the court below is modified as stated in the purport of the claim.

Defendant: The part of the lower judgment against the Defendant is revoked, and the corresponding Plaintiffs’ claims are dismissed.

1. Details of the instant disposition

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or evidence of subparagraph 1-1 through 5, evidence of subparagraph 2-32, 33, 36, 37, 39, 42, 43, 53, 54, 56, 60, 63, 69 through 94, 100, 102, 103, 105, 106, 106, subparagraph 3-1 through 5, Eul, 13, 6, 11 through 15, 19, 20, 25, 30, 36, 37, 40 through 42, 46, 47-1, 2-3, 34, 38, 37, 43-1 through 47, 47-1, 36, 47, 47-2, 34, 37-1, 43, 47-2, 47

A. The plaintiffs are land rearrangement associations organized by the land owners of Pyeongtaek-si, Jeonnam-ri, Hoi-ri and Hoho-ri in Yangsan-si, and have been implementing a land rearrangement project for the above land after obtaining authorization for the establishment of the association and the implementation of the project from May 1, 1995 to April 1, 1996.

B. However, on July 10, 1995, the Yangsan City tried to construct an independent sewage treatment plant for sewage treatment in the instant area scheduled for the land readjustment project, the housing site development project, etc., but it failed to obtain authorization from the Minister of Environment for the plan for the installation of sewage treatment plants on the ground that there was a rare sewage treatment plant in charge of sewage treatment in the relevant area, and that the sewage treatment plant in the same area cannot be installed as an annex to the same area, and requested the Defendant to cooperate by expanding the sewage treatment plant to treat sewage in a long-term area.

C. Accordingly, the Defendant decided to extend the treatment facilities of the existing scarbage sewage treatment plant and the tea culvert to treat sewage generated in the scarbing area as well as the eroin village within Ulsan-si and the eroging area, and obtained approval from the Minister of Environment on December 27, 1995 from the Minister of Environment for the modification of the basic plan for the sewerage maintenance on the scarbage on the Scarg Dam. On June 4, 1996, the Defendant obtained permission for the extension of the scarbage treatment plant on December 31 of 196 on the basis of the report submitted by the said company.

D. The Defendant initially planned to cover the project cost by the national expenses and the local expenses of the Defendant and Yangsan City, but the Ulsan Metropolitan City Sewerage Use Ordinance was amended on March 29, 1997, stating that the amount to be borne by the Defendant may be imposed even in the case of a land readjustment project on March 29, 1997. In addition to the State and local expenses, the project cost was to be financed by the method of collecting the amount to be borne by the burden (hereinafter “the initial amount to be borne by the burden”). The Plaintiffs, except the Plaintiff 3, filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition to impose the amount to be borne by the Defendant on the Ulsan District Court No. 98Gu765, Ulsan District Court (hereinafter “the first amount to be borne by the Defendant”), but they appealed against this and appealed.

E. On December 1999, the appellate court of the revocation suit (this court 99Nu3904) had been pending, the Board of Audit and Inspection inspected the extension factory of the amusement sewage treatment plant in a state of 23 percent progress in the entire process. As a result, the number of sewage inflows flowing into the waste treatment terminal in the facilities capacity of the small and medium-sized city near the amusement sewage treatment plant can be changed to 23.3 percent of the capacity of the facilities (16,85 meters in estimating the volume of sewage flows as of 201) and treated them directly within the same zone, on the ground that the additional sewage flows from the waste treatment terminal in the area of the amusement sewage treatment plant can be reduced to 22.7 billion won in direct consideration of the increase of the waste treatment plant in the facility capacity of the small and medium-sized city.

F. In accordance with the recommendation of the said Board of Audit and Inspection, the Defendant: (a) suspended the construction of the night sewage treatment plant from around August 200, and performed only the pipeline construction; (b) waived the extension of the night sewage treatment plant; and (c) instead, changed the business plan and design by replacing the Plaintiffs’ respective construction areas and the final sewage treatment plant to the construction method (hereinafter the changed construction method). On November 2000, the Defendant applied for authorization for the change of the business of the night sewage treatment plant from the Minister of Environment; and (d) performed the construction of the teas and transfer conduits after obtaining authorization therefor from the Minister of Environment.

G. However, on September 14, 2001, the above appellate court rendered a judgment in favor of all of the plaintiffs except the plaintiff Samho Land Partitioning Cooperative on the ground that the above disposition violated related Acts and subordinate statutes and its procedure is illegal, since the defendant should be evaluated as entirely different construction works in various aspects, such as the size, content, construction cost, location, etc. of the originally planned and modified construction work. The legitimate grounds for the imposition of the amount borne by borne by borne persons exist any more. The above disposition was reversed and the judgment in favor of all of the plaintiffs except the plaintiff Samho Land Partitioning Cooperative.

H. Accordingly, in accordance with the purport of the above judgment, the defendant revoked all the imposition disposition of the initial amount borne by the burden imposed on the plaintiffs other than the plaintiff Samho Cooperative, and held an explanatory meeting on May 21, 2001 related to the release of the amount borne by the burden of borne by the plaintiff, including the plaintiffs, on the part of interested parties, including the plaintiffs, on October 13, 201, and on October 23, 2001 and Article 32(2) of the Sewerage Act and Article 24(2) of the Ulsan Metropolitan City Sewerage Use Ordinance, each of the dispositions of this case imposed on the plaintiffs each of the charges borne by the burden calculated as stated in the separate sheet 1 through 5.

2. Determination on the legitimacy of each of the dispositions of this case

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The plaintiffs asserted that the defendant's disposition is unlawful on the following grounds.

(1) Among the dispositions of this case, the part against the plaintiffs except for the plaintiff Samho Cooperative is a defect that conflicts with the binding force of the previous appellate court judgment, and its defect is serious and obvious and thus null and void.

(2) Even though the instant disposition does not conflict with the binding force of the above judgment, if it is not permitted under the principle of good faith if there is a final and conclusive judgment on the previous suit and the subsequent suit is merely repeating the previous suit in substance. In light of this, the imposition disposition against the plaintiffs except the Plaintiff Samho Cooperative is unlawful against the principle of good faith.

(3) Where a law delegates the duties of the people to the enforcement decree or municipal ordinances, etc., the provisions of Article 32(5) of the Sewerage Act provide that “The necessary matters concerning the above charges shall be prescribed by municipal ordinances of the pertinent local government,” and Article 75 of the Constitution provides that “The matters concerning the above charges shall be prescribed by municipal ordinances of the pertinent local government,” and each of the dispositions of this case based on such unconstitutional provisions are unlawful.

(4) The State or local governments are bound by the constitutional provisions on legalism and property rights guarantee in accordance with the principle of the rule of law, and the legal stability and predictability about economic activities of the people should be protected, and the interpretation of the law should be strict. Article 32(2) of the Sewerage Act, which is the basis for the disposition of this case, delegated the municipal ordinances under paragraph (5) without stipulating the contents of “other construction” and “other acts”, which are the elements for imposing the burden borne by the responsible person. The plaintiffs are not the above other construction or other acts, and they do not specifically stipulate the contents in the Ulsan Urban Sewerage Use Ordinance between 195 and 196, which is the time when the business is authorized for the plaintiffs, and it does not stipulate the contents in detail in the Ulsan Urban Sewerage Use Ordinance between 195 and 196, which is the time when the business is authorized by the Ministry of Environment. Since the Ordinance was amended in accordance with the Standard Sewerage Use Ordinance of Ministry of Environment, it is unlawful for the plaintiffs to retroactively apply the land readjustment project to the extent of the completion of this case.

(5) In the case of a land readjustment project, the competent authority should point out that the project implementer should include the amount borne by the burden in the cost plan as a matter of course when submitting the project plan, including the cost plan, etc., but at the time of authorization, there is no way to procure funds differently because the cost reduction rate is so imminent that it is difficult to adjust the cost reduction rate because the cost reduction rate cannot be adjusted at 50%, which is the normal line of law, and it is unlawful to take each of the dispositions of this case against the land rearrangement project, which is a non-profit corporation, after a considerable period of time after the implementation of the project.

(6) The provisions of Article 32(5) of the Sewerage Act stipulate that matters necessary for the procedures for imposing and collecting charges shall be stipulated by the municipal ordinance, and that it may not be stipulated by the standards for calculating the amount of sewage discharged. However, the Ulsan Metropolitan City Sewerage Ordinance on the Use of Sewage shall be based on the quantity on the basic plan for sewerage maintenance, the basic plan or the working design report for the calculation of the amount borne by the burden borne by the Defendant, which set the objective of 201 (which appears to be a clerical error in 2011), which stipulates that the amount of sewage discharged in the development area shall be based on the quantity on the basic plan for the calculation of the amount borne by the Defendant, which stipulates that the amount of sewage discharged in the development area shall be calculated on the basis of the basic plan for

(7) The Enforcement Rule of the Ulsan Metropolitan City Sewerage Use Ordinance provides that the amount borne by the plaintiffs shall be imposed and collected prior to the commencement of construction work (the plaintiffs claim that the amount borne by the plaintiff shall be imposed and collected within 10 days from the commencement of construction work, but the plaintiff's assertion as to the Enforcement Rule at the time of each disposition of this case shall be examined). The plaintiffs' commencement of construction work from January 1, 1993 to August 196 and completion of construction work is against the defendant's imposition procedure under the Ordinance.

(8) In addition, in accordance with the Enforcement Rule of the Ulsan Metropolitan City Sewerage Use Ordinance, the imposition period of the amount borne by borne by borne persons shall be within 10 days from the date on which the plaintiffs commenced the construction, and in the absence of the Municipal Ordinance with respect to the imposition of the amount borne by borne by borne persons, it shall be in the same manner as local taxes are imposed. In general taxes, if five years have passed from the date on which taxes may be imposed, no taxes may be imposed, and since the plaintiffs commenced the construction between 1995 and 196, the disposition in this case was made five years after the date on which the commencement date of the construction, which was 10 days from the date of the commencement, and the amount borne by borne persons

(9) The Defendant determined the amount of sewage generated according to the planned population reported at the time of obtaining authorization for project implementation and determined the amount of the amount borne by borne persons based on the amount of the relevant sewage generated. Although the grounds for imposing taxes, such as the amount borne by borne persons, should be clear, the Defendant calculated and imposed the amount borne by borne persons based on the anticipated population, and thus, it is unlawful

(10) Article 16 of the Enforcement Rule of the Ulsan Metropolitan City Sewerage Use Ordinance, which imposes an amount borne by the Defendant on the Plaintiffs, provides that the calculation of the amount borne by the burden shall be based on the attached Tables 2 and 3, and the attached Tables 2 and 3 provides that the amount borne by the burden shall be calculated after calculating the amount of sewage and sewage generation based on the use of a building constructed in a project site by an urban development project. ① In the process of implementing the project in this case, the following population plan was established and approved, and the project in this case did not specify whether a building will be constructed in detail within the project district in this case, and even if there was no plan to build any building, the Defendant calculated the amount borne by the burden on the basis of only a housing facility in the future, not only the housing facility in the land readjustment project district of the Plaintiffs, but also the accommodation facility, store, etc. can be constructed, and since these buildings are imposed on the basis of the size of the building, it is unlawful to impose only the population or the area of the building.

(11) In a case where the construction cost for the public sewerage required due to other construction works or other acts occurs, the burden-bearing charges under the Sewerage Act shall bear all or part of the cost incurred to the implementer of the other construction works or the other acts. However, each of the instant dispositions imposes each of the instant dispositions on the Plaintiffs each of the construction cost for the facilities of the Onnuri sewage terminal, which does not fall under the construction for the public sewerage required due to each of the instant land readjustment projects. Therefore, each of the dispositions

(12) The Defendant calculated the amount borne by the Defendant based on the amount of sewage generated as of 2011, not the year of completion of the Plaintiffs. The instant disposition based on the amount of sewage generated at an unspecified time in the future is unlawful.

(13) The instant disposition that was imposed by taking into account only the first planned population was unlawful, in the case of the Plaintiff’s name-2 association and the Jejunam Partnership, since the business plan population has significantly decreased after the first project implementation authorization was granted.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 32(2) of the Sewerage Act provides that “In whole or in part, the public sewerage management authority may have the implementor of the other construction work or the actor of the other construction work bear the expenses for the construction work on the public sewerage required due to the other construction work or other act (referring to an act other than the construction work affecting the public sewerage), or may have him bear the expenses for the construction work on the other construction work, or may have him execute the construction work on the other.”

Meanwhile, Article 22(1)2 of the former Ordinance on the Use of Sewage in Ulsan City before its amendment by Ordinance No. 268 of March 29, 1997 provides that "other act" which causes the imposition of an amount borne by a person pursuant to Article 32(2) of the Sewerage Act may be charged with the full amount of the construction cost corresponding to Article 32 of the Sewerage Act without providing for the contents of "other act". Since the amendment of the Act on the Use of Sewage in Ulsan Metropolitan City (Ordinance No. 505 of March 29, 1997), the current Ordinance on the Use of Sewage in Ulsan Metropolitan City (Ordinance No. 505) provides that "the amount borne by a person pursuant to the provisions of Article 32 of the Act shall be included in the construction cost of the public sewerage system (including expenses for the new construction of sewage culvert and the appurtenant construction work), and that "the amount borne by a person who is subject to the imposition by a person pursuant to the provisions of attached Table 2 of the Housing Construction Promotion Act shall be calculated as construction cost of the new urban park development project:

In addition, Article 17 (1) 1 of the Ulsan Metropolitan City Sewerage Use Ordinance(Enforcement Rule 272 of the Rule) provides that "The amount borne by the burden shall, in principle, be collected before the completion of the relevant project or facility, and the time and method of payment shall be determined by the Enforcement Rule of the Municipal Ordinance."

C. Determination

(1) After the judgment revoking the determination on the assertion of violation of the binding force and the principle of good faith becomes final and conclusive, the same disposition against the plaintiffs except the plaintiff Samho Mutual Association shall be deemed unlawful and invalid (see Supreme Court Decision 90Nu3560, Dec. 11, 1990, etc.). However, as seen above, the appellate court's changed construction work, which became the premise for the disposition of this case originally planned by the defendant, clearly different construction works in various aspects, such as the size, content, construction cost, location, etc. of construction work, and the fact that there is no longer a legitimate ground for imposing the amount borne by the defendant at all, and the above disposition is in violation of related Acts and subordinate statutes and its procedure is unlawful, and it can be recognized that the defendant's decision was final and conclusive without filing a final appeal. In light of the above acknowledged facts, it cannot be deemed that the above disposition of this case goes against the principle of good faith, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the above disposition of this case is unlawful (see Supreme Court Decision 2002).1).

(2) Determination on the assertion that Article 32(5) of the Sewerage Act is unconstitutional

Article 117(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea provides that "Local governments shall handle affairs concerning the welfare of residents, manage property, and enact regulations concerning autonomy within the scope of statutes," and Article 15 of the Local Autonomy Act provides that "Local governments may enact municipal ordinances concerning their affairs within the scope of statutes: Provided, That in cases where a law comprehensively delegates matters concerning restrictions on the rights of residents, imposition of obligations on residents, or penal provisions, matters concerning the rights and obligations of residents shall be delegated by law." However, unlike administrative agencies' orders, the municipal ordinances may enact municipal ordinances on matters concerning the rights and obligations of residents to the extent that local governments are the autonomous corporation of local governments enacted by the resolution of local councils which are the representative agencies of residents, as long as local governments are the autonomous corporation of local governments established by the resolution of local councils which are the representatives of residents, unlike administrative agencies' orders (see Supreme Court Decision 90Nu613, Aug. 27, 191).

Therefore, even if Article 32(5) of the Sewerage Act only provides for "necessary matters concerning charges" and delegates it to the ordinances without specifying the scope of the standards, etc. for burden-bearing charges, it cannot be said that the comprehensive delegation provision violates Article 75 of the Constitution (see Constitutional Court Order 2002Hun-Ba76, Sept. 23, 2004, which is the adjudication on constitutional complaint filed by the plaintiffs of this case). Ultimately, the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

(3) Determination as to the assertion that the law is unlawful retroactively

As seen earlier, the Ulsan City Sewerage Use Ordinance prior to the amendment by Ordinance No. 268 of March 297 provides that the construction cost may be charged to the causing person falling under Article 32 of the Sewerage Act without providing for the contents of the "other acts" which are the cause for imposing the amount borne by him pursuant to Article 32 (2) of the Sewerage Act. However, only after the Ulsan City Sewerage Use Ordinance as amended on March 29, 1997, the Act on Land and Rearrangement Projects (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport as the Urban Development Act at the time of the disposition in this case) provides for urban development projects as one of the "other acts" under the Act on Land and Rearrangement Projects (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport as the Urban Development Act), and it is difficult for the defendant to claim that the land readjustment project was conducted as one of the "other acts" under Article 32 (2) of the Sewerage Act, which is the first part of the existing Ordinance before the execution of the project in order to ensure that the plaintiff's new Ordinance No. 2 of the above Ordinance No. 3.

(4) Determination on the assertion of violation of the principle of protection of trust

In general, in administrative legal relations, in order to apply the principle of trust protection to the acts of an administrative agency, the administrative agency should first issue an official opinion that is the subject of trust to an individual; second, the administrative agency's opinion opinion statement should not be attributable to the individual; third, the individual should have trusted the opinion statement; third, the administrative agency should have conducted any act against the above opinion statement; fourth, the administrative agency's disposition against the above opinion statement should cause an infringement on the individual's interest; fourth, if any administrative disposition satisfies these requirements, it should not be likely to seriously undermine the public interest or legitimate interests of a third party (see Supreme Court Decision 9Du1052 delivered on May 25, 199, etc.); first, the defendant's expression of official opinion that the burden should not be imposed on the individual; first, the defendant's assertion that the defendant should not impose the burden on the individual; and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the defendant should not impose the burden on the individual; second, the defendant's assertion that there is no reason to acknowledge the remaining opinion of the plaintiffs.

(5) Determination on the assertion of deviation or abuse of discretionary power

In order to improve and maintain sewerage, the Sewerage Act was enacted to contribute to the sound development of urban and local communities and the improvement of public health and to preserve the water quality of public waters. In light of the need to preserve the environment today, financial resources, such as burden-bearing charges, etc. for expanding sewerage facilities, are very important. As the Sewerage Act has already been enacted at the time of the implementation of the project in this case, it can be predicted that the plaintiffs can be imposed and notified by imposing the burden upon the plaintiffs according to the implementation of the project in this case. According to each of subparagraphs 1 through 15-2 of the evidence No. 11-2, it is actually possible for the Gyeongnam Do governor to issue an authorization to implement the project in relation to the plaintiffs, the remaining plaintiffs except the plaintiff Pyeongtaeksan Cooperatives at the time of the implementation of the project in this case, on the condition that "living sewage can be discharged through consultation with the Ulsan City and the results should be reflected in the project plan." Thus, considering all circumstances of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs' assertion that there is no reason to impose any disadvantage on the plaintiffs in this case.

(6) Determination as to whether a municipal ordinance provision stipulating standards for calculating sewage emissions becomes invalid

Article 32(2) of the Sewerage Act provides that a local government may freely enact municipal ordinances within the scope of statutes as delegated by the autonomous affairs of a local government or an organization, and that the municipal ordinances may enact matters concerning the rights and obligations of residents as long as the local government autonomous corporations established by the resolution of the local council which is the representative body of residents, unlike the administrative agency’s order, as seen in the above (2). Article 32(2) of the Sewerage Act provides that a construction project on which the amount borne by a local government may be imposed is a construction project on the public sewerage system necessary due to other construction works or other acts, and Article 32(5) of the same Act delegates matters concerning the charges to the ordinances of local governments. As long as the municipal ordinances are delegated, it is legitimate that

(7) Determination of the assertion that each of the dispositions of this case was unlawful against the imposition procedure

The fact that the burden borne by the plaintiffs shall be imposed and collected prior to the commencement date of construction work is specified in the Enforcement Rule of the Ulsan Metropolitan City Sewerage Use Ordinance. However, in the Ulsan Metropolitan City Sewerage Use Ordinance, which the plaintiffs applied at the time of the commencement of construction work for a land readjustment project, there was no provision on the collection procedure of the burden borne by the plaintiffs in the Ulsan Metropolitan City Sewerage Use Ordinance. Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion is not applied to the procedure provision of the above Enforcement Rule of the plaintiffs' assertion

(8) Determination on the assertion that the exclusion period for imposition on the burden borne by the obligor has expired

Article 28 of the Ulsan Metropolitan City Sewerage Use Ordinance provides that the Local Tax Act shall apply to the imposition and collection of burden-bearing charges or other charges other than those prescribed by this Ordinance, and the exclusion period for imposition of burden-bearing charges shall also be five years pursuant to the provisions of the Local Tax Act. However, Article 24(4) of the above Ordinance provides that the burden-bearing charges shall, in principle, be collected before the completion of the relevant project or facility, and the time and method for payment shall be determined by the Enforcement Rule of the Ordinance, and the Enforcement Rule of the above Ordinance delegated by the above Ordinance provides that the burden-bearing charges shall be imposed

In full view of the above provisions, the amount borne by the burden shall be imposed only before the completion of the project or the facility concerned in accordance with the provisions of the above Ordinance. However, as seen above, in light of the fact that the above Municipal Ordinance delegated only the time and method of payment from the Municipal Ordinance, the part concerning the "time of imposition" shall be deemed as the working rules for administrative affairs, and thus, it shall not be deemed as the starting point of the exclusion period of imposition of the charge. Therefore, the above assertion by the plaintiffs is without merit in the following point. [On the other hand, in the case of the plaintiffs except for the three-party association, the above argument is without merit. In other words, Article 30-4 of the Local Tax Act, which applies to the above Municipal Ordinance, provides for the exclusion period of imposition in Paragraph 1, and in Paragraph 2, the above decision may be cancelled or other necessary disposition by the court prior to the lapse of one year from the date of the original decision or decision under subparagraph 1, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 1, until the decision or decision under subparagraph 1 becomes final and conclusive."

(9) Judgment on the assertion of violation of the no taxation without law

In the event of expanding sewage treatment facilities, sewage terminal treatment facilities, or sewage treatment facilities, in light of the fact that the construction of sewage treatment facilities is conducted in accordance with the method of determining the size and capacity of sewage pipes by estimating sewage discharged quantity, etc. according to the implementation plan for a land readjustment project implemented by the plaintiffs, who are other actors requiring such extension, the defendant's calculation based on the estimated population according to the implementation plan reported by the plaintiffs cannot be deemed as a violation of the principle of no taxation without the law because it is difficult to see that the basis for imposing charges is unclear. Thus,

(10) Determination as to the allegation that each of the dispositions of this case was unlawful without considering the building or facilities to be newly constructed in the land readjustment project district

Article 16 of the Enforcement Rule of the Ulsan Metropolitan City Sewerage Use Ordinance provides that the calculation of the amount borne by the burden of borne by the public sewerage pursuant to Article 24 (2) 4 of the Ulsan Metropolitan City Sewerage Use Ordinance shall be based on the attached Tables 2 and 3. Article 24 (2) 4 of the above Ordinance provides that the calculation of the amount borne by the public sewerage pursuant to Article 32 (4) of the Sewerage Act shall not apply to this case. As seen earlier, Article 32 (2) of the Sewerage Act does not apply to this case. As seen earlier, the ground for imposing the burden of borne by the public sewerage shall include the area excluded from the treatment-required area due to the urban development project as the sewage treatment area, which is the area excluded from the treatment-required area due to the urban development project, and the burden of new construction and extension of the public sewerage system is based on the basic and implementation plan necessary for the new construction and extension of the sewage culvert, construction cost, and other incidental expenses, and the amount of sewage generated by a land readjustment project, which is an urban development project, shall not be based on the basis of calculation of 84.

(11) Determination as to the allegation that imposing an amount borne by the responsible person on the cost of the facilities for the final sewage treatment plant is illegal

Article 32 (2) of the Sewerage Act provides that each public sewerage management authority shall bear all or part of the expenses incurred in the construction of the public sewerage required due to other construction works or acts to the implementer of the relevant other construction works or to execute the relevant construction. Article 24 (1) of the present Ulsan Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Use of the Sewerage (Ordinance No. 505) provides that the charges borne by the public pursuant to the provisions of Article 32 of the Act shall be the basic cost necessary for the new construction and extension of the public sewerage culvert (including the sewage culvert and pumps facilities and sewage terminal treatment facilities), working design cost, land cost (including the land appurtenant work cost), construction supervision cost, and other incidental expenses. Since Article 32 (2) 2 of the Act provides that the new installation cost of the existing public sewerage construction required due to other construction works or acts shall also be borne by the implementer of the relevant other construction works or the other acts, it shall be deemed that the new installation cost of the sewage treatment facility should be excluded from the new installation cost of the public sewerage construction works or new installation cost of the new public sewage disposal project, as stated that such new installation or new installation cost should be interpreted as "the new installation cost of the new installation cost".

(12) Determination of the allegation that the instant disposition based on the amount of sewage generated at an unspecified point of time in the future is unlawful

As seen earlier, inasmuch as the amount of sewage generation is deemed based on the basic plan for sewerage maintenance and the quantity stated in the basic plan for the relevant project or the quantity stated in the implementation report, as seen earlier, the Defendant may calculate the amount of sewage generation based on the quantity of target year specified in the framework plan for sewerage maintenance. Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ assertion also has no merit.

(13) Determination as to the allegation that the project plan of the Plaintiff Aero 2 Association and the Jejunam Association reduces population

(A) As seen earlier, Article 24(2) of the Ulsan Metropolitan City Sewerage Use Ordinance (Ordinance No. 505) provides that “The amount borne by the burden of borne by the Defendant under the provisions of paragraph (1) shall be calculated as shown in the attached Table 6 according to the following standards.” Subparagraph 2(c) provides that the amount of sewage generated shall be based on the basic plan for sewerage maintenance and the basic plan for the relevant project or the basic plan for the implementation of the relevant project. The Defendant calculated the amount of sewage generated within the development area on the basis of the Plaintiffs’ project plan population in the attached Table 6 as to the calculation of the amount of sewage generated within the development area (population x 232L), groundwater quantity (living volume x 0.1), daily maximum volume (living volume + groundwater volume), the amount of sewage generated in the instant case (living volume x 1.8 + groundwater volume) and the amount of sewage generated by the Defendant itself should be reflected in the calculation of the amount of sewage generated by 21 or more per capita based on the Plaintiffs’ basic plan or the implementation plan plan of the project.”

(B) On this basis, the Defendant asserted that there was no reduction factor in the disposition of this case as long as the changed planned population exceeds 70% of the first planned population, even though some planned population was reduced, in light of the circumstance that the Defendant applied the above criteria to calculate the amount of sea water generation for all the plaintiffs, and furthermore, it is necessary to observe the above criteria set by the Defendant himself to maintain fairness and equity in the application of the Act. Thus, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

(C) Furthermore, comprehensively taking account of the whole purport of the oral argument in the statements in the health room, Gap evidence Nos. 15, 16, 17, and 19 with respect to the decrease in the specific project plan population, the following facts are acknowledged: (a) the Plaintiff’s name bank applied for the change of part of the multi-family housing site to a detached housing site on May 17, 2001; (b) on July 8, 2001, the Plaintiff’s name bank has already obtained the change of the project plan on July 8, 200; (c) the change of the plan population was reduced from 11,378 to 9,85 with respect to the first approval of the project; and (c) the Plaintiff’s name South-North union also changed the planned population from 4,425 to 3,930.

Although the attorney of the Plaintiff’s name-2 association asserts that the planned population of the Plaintiff’s name-2 association was reduced again by 6,593 after the approval for modification of the above business, there is no evidence to deem that the approval for modification of the business of the Plaintiff’s name-2 association on the purpose of reducing the planned population was made (as a result of the evidence Nos. 20, 21-1, 21-2, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the non-party name-2 association, a multi-family housing constructor of the above association, applied for a housing construction project at Yangsan-si, and the number of households of multi-family housing was reduced due to the application of the floor area ratio in the process, it is deemed that the number of households of the Plaintiff’s name-2 association cannot be the same as

The plaintiffs' attorney also asserts that the disposition of this case against the remaining plaintiffs is unlawful on the ground that the planned population will be reduced due to the application of the floor area ratio as above. However, as seen earlier, the disposition of this case against the remaining plaintiffs cannot be asserted solely on the ground that there is a possibility of a decrease in the planned population.

(D) Calculation of the amount borne by the legitimate amount borne by the Plaintiff’s name2 Cooperatives and the Jejunam Cooperatives

If the amount borne by the plaintiffs is calculated based on the volume as stated in the attached Table 8, the total amount of KRW 3,090,384,301 and the amount of KRW 1,219,808,001 as stated in the attached Table 9 in the case of the plaintiff Youngdong 2 Cooperatives, as shown in the attached Table 8, shall be calculated based on the change of the planned population as stated above. Therefore, the part exceeding the above amount among the dispositions against the above plaintiffs in this case shall be deemed unlawful (the above plaintiffs were significantly changed, and therefore the whole disposition against the above plaintiffs shall be deemed unlawful. However, the whole disposition against the above plaintiffs shall not be deemed unlawful merely on the ground of the above unlawful ground).

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the disposition imposing an amount borne by the Defendant for KRW 3,090,384,301 and KRW 1,373,596,870 against the Plaintiff’s Namnam Cooperative, among the disposition imposing an amount borne by the Defendant for imposing an amount of KRW 3,57,883,09,00 against the Plaintiff’s name-2 Cooperative, shall be revoked as unlawful, and the remainder of the above Plaintiffs’ claims and the remainder of the Plaintiffs’ claims shall be dismissed as they are without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below which made a different conclusion is improper. Accordingly, the part of the judgment of the court below against the Defendant ordering revocation as to the portion exceeding the above amount, and the part against the Defendant against the Plaintiff’s name-2 Cooperative, Busan Cooperative, and Samnam Cooperative, which affected the revocation of each of the above amounts, shall be revoked, and each of the Plaintiff’s claims corresponding thereto shall be dismissed, and the remainder of the Plaintiffs’ appeals and the Defendant’s respective appeals shall be dismissed.

Judges Kim Jong-dae (Presiding Judge) and Hong-ray Kim