1. The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 23,350,050,000,000 against the Plaintiff on September 1, 2017, is KRW 21,57,530.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person who operates a public bath with the total area of 700.28 square meters in the name of “C” from August 24, 2011 to Daegu Suwon-gu B (hereinafter “instant bath”).

The Defendant calculated the sewage discharge amount by mistake in the flow system, even though the groundwater measuring instrument installed and used in the instant bath is a part-time system, and thus, calculated the sewage discharge amount by mistake, the Defendant impose a sewage use fee of the amount of KRW 23,350,050 imposed on the Plaintiff from June 2014 to May 2017.

B. On September 1, 2017, the Defendant attached Form for the following reasons to the Plaintiff:

1. Imposition of 23,350,050 won for the sewerage fee calculated as stated, and the payment was made and notified accordingly.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). C.

On December 26, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Defendant pursuant to Article 24 of the Daegu Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Use of Sewerage (hereinafter “Ordinance on the Use of Sewerage”), but the objection was dismissed on February 23, 2018.

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, the purport of whole pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 of this case should be revoked on the ground that it violates the principle of trust protection or the principle of trust and good faith for the following reasons.

① The Plaintiff, taking into account all the expenses imposed by the Defendant, determined the bathing cost of the instant bath as KRW 4,00 per adult time, and operated the instant bath.

However, the Defendant’s payment of the sewage fee for the three-year period imposed on the Plaintiff without sea would be trusting the Defendant’s administrative act and lowering the Plaintiff’s trust in the instant bath.

② In addition, D, who is a public official of the Defendant, promised to exempt the Plaintiff from the under-paid sewage fee, and the Defendant changed its position at the latest and imposed the sewage fee on the Plaintiff.