Additional charges and requirements for the imposition of administrative fines for the Seoul Metropolitan Government Water Supply Ordinance and Sewerage Use Ordinance;

The surcharge and fine for negligence prescribed by the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on Water Supply and Sewerage Use are imposed on "a person who is exempted from the collection of water supply or sewage fee by fraud or other improper means" and thus, the imposition of the surcharge and fine for negligence must be objectively recognized (in relation to a fine for negligence on which the collection is made), and there should be awareness that a person who is exempted from the collection is exempted from the collection by fraud or other improper means.

Article 130 of the Local Autonomy Act, Article 34 of the Seoul Metropolitan Government Ordinance on Water Supply, Article 29 of the Seoul Metropolitan Government Ordinance on Sewerage Use.

E. S.P. et al.

The head of Yongsan-gu

The defendant's notice of payment of KRW 14,431,210 as well as KRW 72,656,050 as a penalty surcharge for water supply and KRW 72,656,050 as well as a penalty surcharge for sewage use and KRW 30,119,94 as well as fine for negligence for sewerage use, respectively, shall be revoked on June 3, 198.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. The plaintiff 2 is the owner of the above 4-story building located in Yongsan-gu, Seoul and its 100 square meters combined with the above 1-2, the plaintiff 2's 3-1-2-1-2-2-1-2-1-2-2-2-3-2-2-1-2-2-3-2-4-2-2-3-2-4-2-3-2-3-2-3-2-4-2-3-2-4-2-3-2-3-4-2-3-2-4-2-3-2-4-2-3-4-2-3-2-4-2-4-2-3-2-4-2-3-4-2-4-2-3-2-4-2-3-3-4-2-4-4-2-3-3-3-4-4-4-2-3-4-4-4-4-4-2-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-4-3-4-4-4-3-3-4-4-3-3-3-4-4-4-3-3-3-4-3-4-3-4-4-

2. In regard to the defendant's assertion that each of the above dispositions of payment notice is lawful on the grounds of the above dispositions and applicable provisions of law, the plaintiff asserted that the above dispositions of payment notice was unlawful, because the plaintiff did not lock the valves of the above inn't locker (1) and the heat on the above tank shock wall was caused by natural damage, and thus, the collection of the fees was not evaded by fraud or other improper means, and (2) the defendant presumed the above combined volume without reasonable and objective grounds, that is, each of the above dispositions of payment notice is unlawful.

3. According to the above provision, the above imposition charges and fines for negligence are imposed on the non-party 1 who was removed from the above collection of the charges by fraud or other improper means. It is reasonable to say that the non-party 1’s previous disposal of the water supply tank was exempted from the collection of the charges (the fines for negligence) by fraud or other improper means, and that the non-party 2’s previous disposal of the water supply tank was not allowed to the non-party 1’s testimony because the non-party 1’s previous disposal of the water supply tank 7’s previous disposal of the water supply tank 9’s previous disposal of the water supply tank 9’s previous disposal of the water supply tank 1’s new disposal of the water supply tank 3’s previous disposal of the water supply tank 1’s previous disposal of the water supply tank 1’s previous disposal of the water supply tank 1’s new disposal of the water by the non-party 3’s previous disposal of the water supply tank 1’s previous disposal of the water to the non-party 1’s previous disposal of the water.

4. Thus, each of the plaintiffs' claims of this case seeking the revocation of each of the above payment notice dispositions is justified, and each of them is accepted, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Jeong Man-Ma (Presiding Judge) Kim Yong-ju