logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2018.06.20 2017구합52342
하수도원인자부담금부과처분취소
Text

1. On May 11, 2017, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 34,698,983,630 on the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 26, 2015, the Plaintiff was a project developer of the Go-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-

B. Around June 2013, the Defendant submitted a business plan regarding the instant project to the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries. At the time, the amount borne by sewage was calculated as KRW 2,039,000,000, and the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries calculated and publicly announced the amount borne by sewage as KRW 2,039,000,000 on August 5, 2014 when formulating and publicly announcing the business plan regarding the instant project.

C. Since then, the Plaintiff received notice from the Defendant that the amount borne by the Defendant for the instant project reaches KRW 23.8 billion, and then requested the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries to approve the implementation plan of the instant project. On June 26, 2015, the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries approved and publicly announced the implementation plan for the project whose amount borne by wastewater was KRW 23.8 billion.

On May 11, 2017, the Defendant imposed on the Plaintiff a penalty surcharge of KRW 34,698,98,983,630 calculated by determining the unit cost per cubic meter as KRW 4,106,340 for the amount of daily wastewater generated 8,450.1 cubic meters, and the unit cost per cubic meter as KRW 34,698,983,630 (=8,450 cubic meters x 4,10

(hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case"). [Grounds for recognition] The entry of Gap's 10, 13, 19, 20, 24 and Eul's 1 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Attached Form 1 of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion is as follows: ① defect in the application of the unit cost of the sewerage burden unit; ② defect in which the unit cost of the sewerage burden unit for the amount of sewage generated due to other acts is not publicly announced; ③ the amendment of the Ordinance on the Use of Sewerage at the time of the Gu’s dynasation that is null and void due to the deviation from the delegated system, which was made by Ordinance No. 1095, Apr. 26,

arrow