1. All of the ancillary claims in the instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's primary claim is dismissed.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The background of the case is 1) The plaintiff is a person who resides in the house located in Seopopo City B. 2) The Japanese unit where the plaintiff's house is located is not included in the planned water supply area under the basic plan for waterworks installation and management, which is a waterworks business operator, and the drainage facilities necessary to supply tap water have not been installed. The plaintiff has lived with rainwater or agricultural water.

B. The Plaintiff’s application for approval of the 12th Water Supply Work and the Defendant’s measure 1) The Plaintiff continued to file a civil petition with the Defendant demanding the installation of water supply and drainage facilities in the Plaintiff’s housing unit from around 2013, and filed an application for approval of the water supply construction work with the Defendant on July 29, 2015 pursuant to Article 9 of the Jeju Special Self-Governing Province Water Supply Ordinance. (2) Accordingly, the Defendant calculated the water supply construction cost at KRW 92,791,60, and issued a disposition imposing the said amount as the water supply construction cost upon the Plaintiff on September 15, 2015.

3) The Plaintiff asserted that the cost of supplying water should be treated with the Defendant’s finances, and brought a civil petition demanding the Defendant to proceed with the construction work at the Defendant’s expense. On May 16, 2016, the Plaintiff applied for approval of the re-supply of water. (4) The Defendant re-calculated the construction cost at KRW 78,200,100; and on May 24, 2016, the Plaintiff issued a disposition imposing the said amount as the cost of supplying water while approving the re-supply of water.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

The Plaintiff’s application for approval of the third water supply work and the Defendant’s measure 1) the Plaintiff refused to pay the water supply construction cost imposed as above and claimed to the effect that “the costs for installing the water supply facilities are borne by the Defendant, so the Plaintiff should only calculate the construction cost for the water supply facilities except this, and notify the Plaintiff thereof.” On July 5, 2017, the Defendant applied for approval of the water supply work again to the Defendant on July 27, 2017. As a result, the Defendant included only the construction cost for the water supply facilities already notified to the Plaintiff.