The Korea Land and Housing Corporation (Attorney transferred to Attorney)

Jinju Market

December 15, 2015

1. The Defendant confirms that the imposition of each facility contribution of KRW 98,736,00 against the Plaintiff on August 5, 2013, against the Plaintiff, of KRW 136,791,00 for the innovation city for the housing site development zone A-1 block, KRW 136,791,00 for the innovation city for the housing site development zone A-4 block on October 29, 2013, and KRW 80,418,00 for the housing site development zone A-5 block on May 20, 2014, is all null and void.

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 March 19, 2007, the Minister of Construction and Transportation (the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport) designated the daily KRW 4,172,000 square meters as the district for the development of the innovation city in Jin-gu (hereinafter “instant district”) and designated the Plaintiff, Jin-si, and the Gyeongnam-do Development Project as the project implementer (No. 2007-80 of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation Notice), and accordingly, the Plaintiff implemented the housing site development project for Jin-do (hereinafter “instant project”).

B. The Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for water supply construction in the course of constructing a new apartment in part of the instant district, and the Defendant approved the said water supply construction, and in accordance with Articles 138, 139, and Article 14 of the Local Autonomy Act (hereinafter “instant Ordinance”), issued a disposition that imposes each facility contribution on the Plaintiff for A-1 block, A-4 block, A-5 block apartment and commercial building within the instant district as indicated in the following table (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

On August 5, 2013, the component imposed on the apartment of the household of the aggregate housing complex, included in the main sentence, for the commercial building and commercial use (won imposed on the unit) on August 5, 2013: A-1 742 95,718,000 3,018,000 98,736,000 on October 29, 2013; 3,773,000 3,018,000 136,791,000,000 on May 20, 2014: A-5607,407,5007,000,003,018,0000,80,418,418,0000,315,000

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 3 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The amount borne by the burden of borne by the Plaintiff under the provisions of Article 71 of the Water Supply and Waterworks Installation Act, when it is necessary to newly install or expand the relevant waterworks, or when the waterworks business operator intends to perform the construction work, on the premise that the existing waterworks installed by the waterworks business operator is used by the waterworks business operator in supplying the tap-water to the waterworks facilities, the costs necessary for the relevant waterworks construction and the installation cost of the existing waterworks equivalent to the volume of the existing waterworks installed by the waterworks business operator are ultimately borne by the person who provided the relevant construction and use the relevant waterworks. As the Plaintiff did not directly install the waterworks in the instant district, the Plaintiff is not entitled to charge the Plaintiff the facility contributions in accordance with the Water Supply and Waterworks Installation Act and the instant Ordinance. Accordingly, the Defendant’s disposition in this case ordered the person who did not

2) Since the burden borne by the Plaintiff under Article 71 (a) of the Water Supply and Waterworks Installation Act and the charge for the installation of facilities under Article 14 of the Ordinance of this case have the same purpose as appropriation for financing for waterworks facilities, imposing the charge for the installation of facilities again on the person who has already paid the charge for the installation of waterworks is unlawful as double imposition. Since the Plaintiff directly completed the construction of waterworks facilities in the instant district and it is the same as the payment of the charge for the burden, the instant disposition imposing the charge for facilities to the Plaintiff is an order to the person who is not responsible for the obligation to pay the charge for the payment of the charge

3) Article 138 of the Local Autonomy Act, which is a law based on the instant disposition, provides that “A local government may collect a charge from a person who gains a special benefit from the establishment of a local government’s property or public facilities within the scope of the benefit therefrom.” Article 14 of the Ordinance of this case provides that a person who does not fall under a “person who obtains a special benefit from a resident,” which goes beyond the scope of delegation under Article 138 of the Local Autonomy Act, which is a superior law, shall impose a facility charge on the Plaintiff, and the disposition of this case based on Article 14 of the invalid Ordinance, is null and void as its defect is serious and clear.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Whether Article 14 of the Ordinance of this case is illegal

A) Article 12 of the Local Autonomy Act provides, “A person having a domicile within the jurisdiction of a local government” with respect to the qualification of “resident,” and Article 138 of the same Act provides, “A local government may collect a contribution from a person benefiting from the establishment of a property or public facility within the scope of his/her benefit, in particular, from a person benefiting from the establishment of the property or public facility.” Article 139(1) provides, “The collection of contributions shall be prescribed by municipal ordinances.”

Meanwhile, Article 6 (1) of the Ordinance of this case provides that "any person who intends to be supplied with tap water shall file an application with the Mayor in advance for approval thereof." The main sentence of Article 13 (1) provides that "any person who has obtained approval for water supply works shall pay the construction cost in advance to the bank designated by the Mayor by the designated date." Article 14 (1) provides that "any person who intends to implement a water supply project falling under any of the water supply facilities, public water supply facilities, and water supply pipes during the extension of the Gu border of the water supply pipes shall pay the construction cost under attached Table 1 at the same time as the construction cost under Article 13," and Article 2 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Ordinance of the Jinju City Water Supply Ordinance provides that "any person who intends to perform a water supply project under Article 6 (1) of the Ordinance shall file an application for exclusive water supply and private water supply under the name of the head of the household, the head of the household, or the representative in accordance with attached Form 1."

B) According to the aforementioned relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the payer of facility contributions under Article 138 of the Local Autonomy Act and Article 14 of the Ordinance shall be construed only as a resident of the relevant local government who receives special benefits from existing water supply facilities after filing an application for new water supply which requires the installation of water supply facilities. Article 14 of the Ordinance of this case shall be construed as a violation of the purpose and scope of delegation under Article 138 of the Local Autonomy Act, the mother corporation, only if it is interpreted that a resident of the relevant local government can be the payer of facility contributions on the ground that he/she applied for new water supply facilities even if he/she is not a person who receives special benefits from existing water supply facilities. Therefore, the prior Defendant’s disposition of this case is against Article 138 of the Local Autonomy Act, the mother corporation, and thus, it is unlawful to review the remainder of the Plaintiff’s assertion.

2) Whether the defects are serious and clear.

A) In order for a defective administrative disposition to be null and void as a matter of course, the defect must be deemed to be a serious violation of the important part of the law, and should be objectively apparent. Thus, for an administrative disposition to be null and void as a matter of course by an administrative agency’s illegal application of an invalid municipal ordinance, the provision concerns the important part of the administrative disposition, which led to a defect in the important part of the administrative disposition. Moreover, the illegality of the provision is so obvious as to the extent that there is no room for dispute over the interpretation of the provision, and the defect in the administrative disposition accordingly should be objectively obvious and obvious (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Du26285, Oct. 29, 2009).

B) In full view of the fact that the instant disposition violates Article 138 of the Local Autonomy Act, and thus, the degree of its defect is significant. According to Article 138 of the Local Autonomy Act, the parent of the instant disposition, which is the mother of Article 14 of the instant Ordinance, the subject of the facility contributions, must be the residents of the relevant local government, who are particularly benefited from the facility. The Plaintiff is not the residents of Jinju-si, but is objectively obvious that it does not fall under the person who is particularly benefited from the facility, it is reasonable to deem the instant disposition to be null and void objectively and objectively, not only due to its defect but also due to its apparent apparent and obvious.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and all of them are accepted, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

(attached Form omitted)

Judges Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Judge)