Plaintiff (Law Firm Past, Attorney Cho Yong-ho, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

The head of Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan City

July 2, 2009

1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 266,312,80 against the Plaintiff on January 5, 2009 is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 29, 2001, the Mayor of Incheon Metropolitan City, on January 29, 2001, issued an authorization to implement the land readjustment project for the Incheon Urban Planning (hereinafter “instant project”) under Article 2 and Article 34 of the former Land Rearrangement and Rearrangement Projects Act (repealed by Act No. 6252, Jan. 28, 2000; hereinafter the same) as the implementer of the Incheon Metropolitan City as the implementer of the urban development headquarters, and publicly announced it.

B. The Defendant set the amount borne by the sewerage burden burden to be borne by the Incheon Metropolitan City Urban Development Headquarters, which is a project implementer, as the process of consultation for the application for authorization of the implementation of the instant project, at KRW 19.5778 billion (limited to the Gu which is not a party), but excluded the amount borne by the sewerage burden on the ground that the development project under the Land Readjustment and Rearrangement Projects Act was excluded from other acts (other than construction affecting the public sewerage system) stipulated in Article 18(2)2 of the former Incheon Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Use of Sewerage (amended by Ordinance No. 3879 of Jan. 2, 2006) as the former Land Readjustment and Rearrangement Projects Act was repealed by Act No. 6252 of Jan. 8, 200.

C. On January 5, 2009, the Plaintiff was sold in lots from the Incheon Metropolitan City Urban Development Headquarters, and applied for approval for use of ○○○○ Hospital (hereinafter “instant building”) on its ground. The Defendant imposed 26,312,800 won on the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 61(1) of the Sewerage Act, Article 35(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 17 of the Incheon Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Use of Sewerage (amended by Ordinance No. 4122, Dec. 24, 2007) (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

Since the project in this case constitutes another act included in an urban development project under Article 61(2) of the Sewerage Act and Article 35(2)2(a) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the amount borne by the sewerage burden burden, such as the load quantity anticipated in connection with the new construction of the building in this case and the cost of installing the facilities to dispose of it, shall be borne by the Incheon Metropolitan City Urban Development Headquarters, which is the implementer of the land readjustment project, as the other act, and the disposition in this case

(2) The defendant's assertion

Since the project of this case was approved under the former Land Readjustment Projects Act, and since the former Land Readjustment Projects Act was repealed by Act No. 6252 of January 8, 2000, it excluded the project under the former Land Readjustment Projects Act from other acts stipulated in Article 18 (2) 2 of the former Incheon Metropolitan City Ordinance on Sewerage Use (amended by Ordinance No. 3879 of January 2, 2006), the project of this case is not included in an urban development project under Article 61 (2) of the Sewerage Act and Article 35 (2) 2 (a) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and it does not constitute other acts.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

Article 61(2) of the Sewerage Act provides that a public sewerage management authority may have the obligor for expenses incurred in the construction of the public sewerage required due to such other construction works as determined by the Presidential Decree or acts other than those affecting the public sewerage (hereinafter “other acts”) bear all or part of the expenses incurred in the construction of the public sewerage required due to such other construction works or acts, or have the obligor for the necessary construction. Accordingly, Article 35(2)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Sewerage Act provides that “Implementation of an urban development project (such as the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, the Housing Act, the Act on the Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, the Housing Development Promotion Act, the Housing Development Promotion Act, and the Urban Development Promotion Act, etc.)” as one of other acts, other than those affecting the public sewerage. The purpose of this provision is to have the obligor for the construction of the public sewerage necessary for the treatment of sewage anticipated to be caused by such other acts, which is the other actors who created the cause (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du6849, Sept.

Therefore, in the case of this case, whether the project of this case, which was implemented under the former Land Readjustment Project Act, falls under the activities under Article 61 (2) of the Sewerage Act and Article 35 (2) 2 (a) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

Article 32 (2) and (5) of the former Sewerage Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8014, Sep. 27, 2006); Article 2 (2) and (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Urban Development Act (amended by Act No. 8014); Article 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Urban Development Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 206, Jan. 28, 2000) provides that all or part of the expenses necessary for the public sewerage construction required due to other construction works or other acts may be borne by the implementer of the relevant other construction works or the relevant construction works, and matters necessary for the charges shall be prescribed by Municipal Ordinance of the relevant local government; Article 18 (2) 2 (b) of the former Ordinance on the Use of Sewerage (amended by Ordinance No. 3503, Jan. 8, 2001) provides that "An urban development project (the Housing Construction Promotion Act, the Urban Development Promotion Act, the Act, and the Urban Park Act, etc.) shall be excluded from the former Ordinance No. 20135.

Therefore, the Incheon Metropolitan City Urban Development Headquarters, which is the operator of the project of this case, is obligated to pay the amount borne by the sewage burden, such as the cost of installing the public sewerage necessary for treating sewage expected to be generated from the project of this case as another act, and on a different premise, the disposition of this case against the plaintiff is illegal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment Form 5]

Judges Cho Il-young (Presiding Judge)