The Defendant’s disposition imposing KRW 259,286,230 on the Plaintiff on October 21, 2019 is null and void.

Details of the disposition

In addition, the head of Dong-gu in Gwangju Metropolitan City performed an urban development project (hereinafter “instant urban development project”) in accordance with the Urban Development Act on a scale of 109,460 square meters in Dong-gu, Gwangju Metropolitan City.

On August 14, 2017, the Plaintiff, from the head of Dong-gu, Gwangju Metropolitan City on the instant urban development project zone, completed the registration of ownership transfer with the repayment of substitute land and completed the registration of ownership transfer, newly constructed C apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”) on the said land.

The Plaintiff filed an application for water supply construction with the Defendant during the process of implementing the new construction of the instant apartment, and on October 21, 2019, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing 259,286,230 won on the Plaintiff who caused water supply to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

On October 22, 2019, the Plaintiff paid all the charges to the person who caused the said waterworks.

[Reasons for Recognition] In the absence of dispute, entry of Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings, where a building is constructed on the land created by an urban development project in the purport of the plaintiff's argument, the person responsible for water supply shall be borne by the implementer of the urban development project. The constructor of the building shall not bear

must be viewed.

Therefore, the Plaintiff, who acquired the land within the instant urban development project zone and newly constructed the instant apartment, is not subject to the charge of water supply costs. As such, the defect of the instant disposition that erroneously designated the obligor is serious and clear, and thus, is null and void per annum.

It shall be as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes.

Judgment

In order for a defective administrative disposition to be null and void as a matter of course, it must be objectively obvious that the defect has violated important parts of the law and its purpose, meaning, function, etc. of the law in order to determine whether the defect is significant and obvious, and at the same time, it is reasonable to consider the purpose, meaning, function, etc. of the law from a teleological perspective, and