1. The Defendant’s disposition of rejecting the application filed by the Plaintiff on September 27, 2017 is revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, as the owner of land B and C in Namyang-si, was engaged in the quantitative industry with the trade name of “D” on each of the above lands, and the Plaintiff was not supplied with tap water through water supply facilities, and was living with ground water.

B. On September 12, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for water supply works with the Defendant pursuant to Articles 6(1) and 9(1) of the Namyang-si Water Supply Ordinance for the installation of water supply pipes for the supply of tap water on each of the above lands owned by the Plaintiff. On September 13, 2017, the Defendant owned on September 13, 2017, G, H, I, J, and K owned 1/5 shares for the land above the land above the land of another person, Nam-si E and F, the land of another person.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant land”) made a request to supplement the content that the water supply pipes passing through the said land together (hereinafter referred to as the “instant land”) should be attached, and the said land should be submitted with a written consent from the owners of the instant land in accordance with Article 2(1)2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Water Supply Ordinance.

C. On September 18, 2017, the Plaintiff’s response to the Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the Defendant’s request for supplement was defective, and the Defendant, on September 20, 2017, notified the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff would return the Plaintiff’s request for supplement if the consent for use was not submitted. The Plaintiff’s response to the Plaintiff’s failure to submit his/her written consent for land use on September 22, 2017 was defective, and on September 27, 2017, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s request for supplement pursuant to Article 25 of the Enforcement Decree of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act on the ground that the Plaintiff did not submit the supplementary documents.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry in Gap evidence 1 through 7 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Defendant asserted L. A. around June 2008.