logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원통영지원 2019.01.17 2017가합10547
부당이득금
Text

1. The lawsuit of the Plaintiff K stores Young-gu Council shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff A representative meeting, the council of occupants' representatives B, and the council.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff’s Association is an organization consisting of the merchants of the K apartment shop in the city L (hereinafter “K shop”) and the rest of the Plaintiffs is the council of occupants’ representatives of the apartment complex of each Plaintiff composed of representatives elected in proportion to the number of households of each apartment complex of each Plaintiff according to Article 14 of the Multi-Family Housing Management Act, etc.

B. To comprehensively treat sewage discharged within his/her jurisdiction, the macro-city market completed the construction of a large-scale public sewage treatment plant at the beginning of the city, 785, at the beginning of the city, and operated it from February 29, 2004, and completed the construction of a large-scale public sewage treatment plant at 139, Dongyang-dong 139, and on April 14, 2008, operated the public sewage treatment plant (hereinafter referred to as the “instant public sewage treatment plant through the above public sewage treatment plant”), and imposed monthly usage fees on the owners and merchants of the apartment complexes of the Plaintiffs on a regular basis, by setting the usage fees for the apartment complexes of the Plaintiffs in accordance with the calculation criteria as set forth in the following table, as stipulated in the former Ordinance on the Use of Sewage (wholly amended by Ordinance No. 521, Apr. 24, 2017; hereinafter referred to as the “Ordinance”).

C. Accordingly, as stated in the details of imposition of the sewage fee for each plaintiff's apartment complex, the macro-market imposed a sewage fee on the occupants and merchants of the apartment complex (hereinafter "instant imposition disposition"), and the plaintiffs paid the above sewage fee to the defendant.

On the other hand, the plaintiffs' apartment complex has a sewage treatment facility itself by each complex, and the occupants of the apartment complex of the plaintiffs do not use the public sewage treatment facility of this case where the macro-market is operated, and treat sewage by using the sewage purification facility of this case.

arrow