1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act are as follows: Article 10 of the Water Quality and Aquatic Ecosystem Conservation Act (hereinafter "Water Quality Conservation Act"), Article 17 of the Water Quality Conservation Act (hereinafter "Water Quality Conservation Act"), Article 17 of the Act on the Preservation of Water Quality; Article 17 of the Act on the Safety of Water; Article 17 of the Act on the Safety of Water; Article 9 of the Act on the Safety of Water and Aquatic Ecosystem (hereinafter "the Act on the Preservation of Water"); Article 4 of the Act on the Safety of Water and Aquatic Ecosystems; Article 4 of the Act on the Safety of Water and Aquatic Ecosystem (hereinafter "the Act on the Preservation of Water Quality");

2. Additional determination

A. The defendant's assertion that Article 61 (1) of the former Sewerage Act stipulates that "the public sewerage management authority may impose all or part of the cost of remodeling the public sewerage on the owner of a building, etc. that can discharge sewage of more than the quantity prescribed by Presidential Decree into the public sewerage system" and delegates only "the volume of sewage discharged into the public sewerage system" to Presidential Decree. Article 35 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Sewerage Act provides that "the owner of a building, etc. that can discharge sewage of more than the quantity prescribed by Presidential Decree into the public sewerage system" means a person who intends to newly discharge or increase sewage of more than 10 cubic meters per day by newly constructing, enlarging, or altering the use of a building, etc., "the volume of sewage discharged into the public sewerage system" as delegated by Article 61 (1) of the former Sewerage Act, and thus, this part is null and void beyond the delegation scope of the mother Act.

B. The Enforcement Decree or the Enforcement Rule of the Act cannot change or supplement the contents of rights and obligations of an individual or provide new contents that are not prescribed by the Act, unless otherwise delegated by the Act.