2011 Gohap 112082 Other (money)

Korea Water Resources Corporation

Daejeon Daejeon Woo-dong, Daejeon 00 6-2

Representative President Kim ○○

Attorney Park Jong-sung et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

1. Gwangju City:

Representative's Market Modern

2. Southern-si:

Representative of the market interest of the representative

3. Ischeon-si.

Representative Market Sicker Money

4. Down-gun:

For the purpose of moving the representative to a Gun;

5. Leisure Forces:

Representative of the Gun Kim Chuncheon

6. Yang-gun:

Representative of the Gun Kim Jong-soo

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 et al.

Attorney Cho-hee et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

June 14, 2012

July 5, 2012

1. The Defendants shall pay to the Plaintiff each corresponding money listed in the separate sheet No. 1 and each corresponding amount, Defendant Gwangju-si.

E From August 30, 2011, Defendant Namyang-si, Defendant Leecheon-si, Defendant Pyeong-gun, Defendant Innju-gun, and Defendant, respectively;

Yang-gun shall pay 20% interest per annum from August 27, 2011 to the date of full payment.

H. D. Payment

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The order is as set forth in the text.

1. Basic facts

A. Status of the party

Plaintiff (the former Industrial Base Development Corporation; hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”) shall comprehensively develop and manage water resources.

Multi-purpose dams established under the Korea Water Resources Corporation Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Corporation Act") for purposes of construction

The construction, operation, and management of various water resources development facilities, including others, are conducting projects.

(b) Conclusion of a contract for using dams for water;

The Plaintiff’s Multipurpose Dam Act, Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Alternative Multipurpose Dam Act between the Defendants and the Defendants

The Act on Construction of Dams and Assistance, etc. to their Environs (hereinafter referred to as the "Act on Dams") enacted at a rate and the Construction Act;

Dam and estuarine bank water use regulations (the Act was enacted on December 6, 1989 by telegraph of the provisions on supply of dam water), dam water supply system

The following provisions, as provided for in relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as water supply regulations (hereinafter referred to as "dam regulations"), and various regulations:

Since each dam use contract (hereinafter referred to as the "water use contract of this case") was entered into with the same content, each dam use contract of this case

Until 2012, the above water contract has been renewed in 1 year unit, and in the process the contract has been renewed.

Under mutual agreement with the Defendants, some terms of a contract, such as the location and volume of water intake under the above water supply contract.

A change was also made to the Corporation.

1) The Plaintiff is operated on April 24, 1989 with the establishment of a right to use a dam between Defendant Gwangju-si and Gwangju-si.

The number of living and public water supplied from a multi-purpose dam managed by the defendant Gwangju City, Gwangju Metropolitan City, Nam-si

Lisan 47 - A contract for the use of dam water with the purport of taking water from one day, August 26, 1996

The defendant is a living or public water supplied in a multi-purpose dam with knowledge and management with the establishment of a right to use a dam.

The contract for the use of dam water for the purpose of collecting from 1124 the Namyang-si, Namyang-si, Namyang-si

each of them was concluded.

2) On December 16, 1982, the Plaintiff was at a multi-purpose dam for common knowledge between Defendant Nam-si and the Namyang-si.

The number of raw or public water supplied by the defendant Namyang-si, Namyang-si, Namyang-si, Namyang-si, 1124

on March 4, 1994, the Plaintiff supplied the dam water in a multi-purpose dam for common knowledge. The Plaintiff supplied the dam water to the aforesaid multi-purpose dam.

- the content that the number of living or public water shall be collected from 566 U.S. Si, Nam-do, Nam-do, Nam-do.

Each contract for the use of dam water was concluded.

3) On April 28, 1992, the Plaintiff supplied at the above multi-purpose dam between Echeon-si and Echeon-si, and the Plaintiff supplied at the above multi-purpose dam.

of the Dong-gu-si, Dongcheon-si, Dongcheon-gu, the number of living or public water is to be collected from 354

The dam water use contract was concluded.

4) On October 5, 2004, the Plaintiff supplied in a multi-purpose dam for common knowledge between Defendant Amar-gun and Defendant Dmar-gun, and the Plaintiff supplied in the multi-purpose dam for common knowledge.

the number of life or public water to be collected from the Sim-si, Dongm-gu, Dongm-gu, Dongm-gu, Dongm-gu, Dongm-gu, Dongm-gu, Dongm-gu,

The contract for the use of dam water was concluded.

5) On March 9, 1993, the Plaintiff supplied at the above multi-purpose dam between Defendant Innju-gun, and the Plaintiff supplied at the above multi-purpose dam.

55 - - 1 of the Sinju-Eup Sin Dong-gu in the Gyeonggi-do, the number of life or public water is to be collected from the Sinju-gun.

The dam water use contract was concluded.

6) On April 14, 1986, the Plaintiff supplied a multi-purpose dam to Defendant Yang Jong-gun, and the Plaintiff supplied it to the said multi-purpose dam.

(33-3 (after 183 thereafter, 183) -2 (3) -2) -2

As a result, a contract for the use of dam water was concluded with the content of collecting water from a change in the water intake location.

(c) The unpaid supply of dam water and usage fees;

Since the conclusion of the instant water contract with the Plaintiff, the Defendants continued to conclude the pertinent contract and the pertinent relationship as seen earlier.

Under statutes, the plaintiff was supplied with dam water from the plaintiff, and the plaintiff also used the above water system.

Pursuant to medicine and related statutes, etc., the Defendants collected fees for dam water used by the Defendants and collected them.

The defendants have been using water for dam use from February 2, 2008 to March 2008 to the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "water for dam use").

J. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L.W.

Gohap expressed his intent to terminate the instant water contract.

D. Relevant statutes

The details of the major Acts and subordinate statutes related to this case are as shown in attached Table 3.

【Unsatisfied fact-finding, Gap evidence 1 through 31, and Eul evidence 1 through 48 (Provisional lot number)

the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs of this Court and the Ministry of Environment of the Ministry of Environment respectively, including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply)

Results of fact inquiry, the purport of the whole pleading

2. Parties’ assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Defendants indicated in the attached Form 1 List, which was unpaid by the Defendants under the water supply contract of this case.

Each relevant water fee and its delay damages shall be paid.

B. The defendants' assertion

1) Claim for cancellation of a contract based on mistake or fraud on the quantity of household water flow

The defendants within the scope of the standard conflict 1) from the time when they first applied for permission to use river water

In addition, there was a legitimate right to obtain permission for use in agriculture in the 2000s.

In accordance with the reduction of water supply demand, etc., the defendants have a substantial quantity of household water in Han River Water 2).

b) the Government does not need to enter into a contract for the use of dam water with the Plaintiff, even if not,

The flow quantity of river water shall be unreasonably raised and publicly notified and the error balance analysis3) and inefficient river water;

False appearance such as lack of available volume of river water through permission operation 4), etc.;

by forming that the Defendants do not have any more available volume in Han River water than Han River water.

In other words, the plaintiff entered into the water contract of this case with the plaintiff, and at the same time the plaintiff is the defendants.

As above, the Defendants are urged to enter into the above water supply contract and the Defendants are bound to enter into the pertinent contract with the Plaintiff.

As to the circumstances, the defendants deceiving the defendants. The defendants made such mistake or the plaintiff

on the ground of the fraud of this case, the water contract of this case is revoked.

2) Claims as to the subject of payment of water fees under the instant water supply contract

In light of various opinions, documents, etc. submitted by the Plaintiff in the relevant case, the Plaintiff

additional water supplied by a dam, i.e., the increase or use of water only due to the construction of a dam;

between the Defendants and the Defendants with the intent to pay water fees only for the increase of river flowing water;

Not only appears to have concluded the instant water contract, but also the Construction Act, the Dam Act and the Dam Provisions

Various Acts and subordinate statutes and regulations related to water use fees, etc. also water to be additionally supplied by dams;

Plaintiff’s right to use a dam shall be deemed to be the water stored in the dam for which the Plaintiff’s right to use the dam has established.

It should be interpreted on the basis of the premise that it is reasonable to interpret it in the end.

Before the construction of a dam which is not supplied by a dam from among the water collected by the Defendants

With respect to the part of the river water naturally flowed, the Defendants shall pay the Plaintiff the water fee for its use.

shall not be liable to pay any such amount.

Meanwhile, as seen above, the water collected by the Defendants is an additional water supplied by a dam.

In respect of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff bears the burden of proof, and the Plaintiff bears the burden of proving the counterclaim against the Defendants.

Even if there is any evidence, the standard for the lecture revealed through the relevant evidence submitted by the Defendants

The current status of reed and household flow, the actual volume of water intake of the Defendants, and the operation of the Government's non-efficiency river water permission.

the effect of the dam stored in the dam recognized through the quantity of wasted water, various academic meetings, research reports, etc.

Section 5), including section and the ratio of actual required flow to section 5, and the actual function and status of use of section 6)

In light of the anti-state circumstances, at least 80% of the water fees the Plaintiff claims against the Defendants.

from before a dam construction that is not related to water to be supplied additionally by this dam

Since this is related to river water that was flown, the Defendants’ water use fee to the Plaintiff.

There is no obligation to pay.

3) Demanding revocation of a contract on the ground of an error as to the subject matter of the instant water contract

If the defendants are entitled to the payment of the water fee under the water contract of this case as set forth in the above 2)

Construction of a dam without limiting to the water supplied by a dam from among the water taken from this water (construction of a dam)

The concept, including river water naturally flown before that time, includes the water taken by the Defendants.) The water taken by the Defendants

If it is interpreted that the aggregate quantity means the aggregate quantity, only the additional water supplied by a dam shall be used.

The defendants who have entered into the water contract of this case with the awareness that they would be required to pay the fees, among the contracts

Since there is an error on the subject matter itself, which is the essential part, the Defendants are the defendants.

For such a mistake, the above water contract shall be revoked.

4) A claim to nullify a contract due to an original impossibility of performance.

In the case of the Kak River, the period from June 6, 1985 to December 12, 1988, and in the case of the Chungcheong Dam, the period from around the time of around the time of around the day of 1988, and in the case of the Chungcheong Dam

prior to this time, the right to use a dam is already supplied by each dam.

The situation in which it is impossible to conclude a contract for the use of dam water any longer because the stored water in the dam was created fully.

As such, each of the above dams was entered into or was entered into as a contract for the same period.

Until now, the water contract of this case between the plaintiff and the defendants whose quantity was changed to be added.

or a modified contract shall be deemed null and void as a contract which is originally impossible (i.e., the point at each point above).

Since then, water actually collected by the Defendants was natural water that had been flowing before a dam was constructed.

§ 30,00.

5) Claims on terms and conditions which are legally null and void under the Regulation of Terms and Conditions

Dam Provisions in certain forms to conclude the instant water contract with the Defendants.

The Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions (hereinafter referred to as the "Standard Terms and Conditions Act") as a content of a contract prepared in advance;

C) The main text of Article 17(1)1 of the Dam Rules is the standard terms and conditions, and the amount used is the limit to the amount used.

C.E. monthly use = 100 per month = 100 per month inspection quantity - 100 per month inspection quantity - 10

section 19(1) of the same section provides that a charge shall be calculated by multiplying the monthly amount of use by the unit price of the charge.

As seen earlier, the water taken by the Defendants is added by a dam.

That is the provision applicable under the premise that the fact that the goods are supplied is clearly demonstrated.

and, if so, without interpreting the above dam regulations, the Defendants take water without conditions.

on the basis of the total quantity of the water taken by the Defendants, or under the dam the water taken by the Defendants.

there is a burden of proving that the product does not constitute an additional water supplied.

If interpreted to the effect, the above dam rules are clauses which are unreasonably unfavorable to the customer, and Article 6 of the Terms and Conditions Act is applied to them.

It shall be null and void in accordance with paragraph 2(1).

3. Determination

A. Determination on the cause of the claim

When a dam is completed, the water storage area shall be a river area in accordance with the Dam Act and the River Act, and shall be discharged from the dam.

The flowing water of a river at the downstream of a dam falls under the flowing water of a river, and the flowing water of a river falls under the original public use.

It shall not be freely used to the extent that it does not interfere with others' sharing.

exclusively for a certain period of time with a special right to use public property which is not allowed to the public;

In order to use it, permission for use shall be obtained by the River Act.

However, the flowing water of rivers is absolutely necessary to preserve human and natural ecosystems.

residents living in the lower reaches area as well as residents living in the lower reaches and use the water.

and at the same time preserve the ecosystem or a pleasant environment around the river.

for the purpose of maintaining the flow of specified quantity of water at sea.

The river management agency shall, on the basis of the river-related Acts and subordinate statutes and the aforementioned principles of common use.

Where an application for permission to use flowing water of a river is filed, it shall be from the standard dry quantity through water balance analysis, etc.

Minimum river maintenance water necessary for maintaining the water intake volume of upper and lower stream and the river ecological environment;

The license is granted within the scope of the deducted flow, and the standard balance between the point at which the license is to be obtained shall be determined.

water within the territory, on the basis of the standard regress in the location publicly notified by the State.

In the event that there is no surplus after analyzing the balance of water in consideration of the quantity of water used, water used for river maintenance, etc., the dam use shall be performed.

Permission shall be granted depending on water supplied by persons with rights, etc.

If the river flow intended to be taken and used as above is a water for which a right for dam use is established under the Dam Act.

An applicant for permission shall obtain the consent of the holder of a right for dam use under the River Act and compensate for the losses incurred therein.

In addition, if the holder of a right to use a dam is the plaintiff, the user and the plaintiff under Article 15(1) of the Construction Act.

Article 16(1) of the Construction Act and Article 35(1) of the Dam Act are enforced between the time when a water contract is concluded.

The plaintiff can collect the user fee from the user by using the water and the user fee for using the water.

Relevant statutes, such as construction methods and dam methods, in the case of volume of water intake, which serves as a basis for calculating water usage fees;

Dam regulations, standards for calculating public utility charges determined by the Minister of Strategy and Finance, and dam charges approved by the Minister of Land, Transport and

prescribed rules, etc. (Supreme Court Decision 2009Da21058 Decided January 13, 201)

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision).

In light of the above legal principles, the above facts and evidence as to the instant case

According to the judgment of the court below, prior to the conclusion of the water contract of this case, the defendants suffered water from Han River before the conclusion of the water contract of this case

For use, the river management agency has filed an application for permission to use river flow under the River Act, and the substitute therefor.

the river management agency shall, on the basis of the analysis of water balance, etc., permit the defendants to take the river water from the Han River.

Plaintiff, a right to use a dam, based on the aforementioned relevant statutes, etc., is deemed insufficient to determine that the quantity of use is insufficient.

a contract for the use of a dam with the Defendants is imposed on the Defendants subject to the permission for the use of river water.

In practice, the Defendants entered into the instant water supply contract with the Plaintiff, and thereafter, the Plaintiff.

Under the above water contract, the defendants continue to supply the water-take quantity agreed upon during the contract period to the defendants;

The defendants have fulfilled their duty under the above water contract. Nevertheless, from February 2008, the defendants from around February 2008.

From April 201 to April 201, in accordance with the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes and various regulations, etc., the Defendants draw and use water.

The amount corresponding to each contract fee specified in attached Form 1, which is legally calculated on the basis of quantity;

Inasmuch as the Defendants did not pay to the Plaintiff (the Defendants paid to the Plaintiff)

Detailed details of calculation of the specific amount of each relevant water fee stated in the Schedule of Attached Form 1 shall be as shown in Attached Form 2.

Each entry) The Defendants, barring special circumstances, are subject to the instant water contract to the Plaintiff, barring special circumstances.

As a fee for unpaid water, each equivalent amount of money and damages for delay shall be paid.

B. Determination as to the defendants' assertion

1) As to the assertion of cancellation of a contract based on mistake or fraud on the quantity of household water flow

The overall section of the permission for the use of river flow recognized by the facts and evidence mentioned above

The set and basic principles, the guidelines for calculating the river flow flow by the river management agency and the detailed basis for calculation, and the river officer;

Water shares since the 1980s, the methods of analyzing water balance and their basic guidelines, and the shares in water

The overall details of tin, the current status of permission for use of river water from the Han River basin, and the determination of the permitted amount of use of river water.

and the basic policy of the river management agency with respect to the adjustment of the permitted volume, the details of the conclusion of the water contract of this case

The evidence submitted by the Defendants is limited to the evidence in light of all the circumstances, including the process and the content of relevant laws and regulations.

the Doctrine of river water, although the government does not actually lack the available volume of the river water, the Doctrine of river water

It shall be published unreasonably, through analysis of erroneous balance of water and non-effective permission operation, etc.

by forming a false appearance, such as the lack of available volume of river water, to constitute the Defendants.

of river water, or, in connection with this, the failure of the volume of used river water to be used by the Board of Governors.

It is insufficient to view that the high-priced Defendants had entered into the instant water supply contract by deceiving them.

and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. Thus, it is based on the defendants' mistake or deception.

This part of the assertion is without merit to examine the remainder of the claim (in particular, the defendants).

An error in the volume of water used for the purpose of using the river as mentioned above in this assertion shall be deemed to have been entered into the instant water contract.

It is merely a kind of mistake of motive as a mistake of a presumed fact, and thus, it is nothing more than a mistake of motive

In the interpretation of a declaration of intention, unless it is the substance of a juristic act, the contract is based on mistake.

Nor can be revoked, which is based on the above facts and the evidence, and such motive is the same.

Since the contents of the water supply contract in this case cannot be seen as being the contents of the water supply contract, in this respect, the defendants

The above mistake revocation argument is difficult to accept).

2) As to the assertion on the subject of payment of water charges under the instant water supply contract

The defendants' assertion concerning the scope of the subject matter of payment of water fees under the water contract of this case

(1) Additional supply by a dam, such as the defendants' assertion under the water contract of this case

on the basis of water increased or available only due to the construction of such water or dam

No provision that the fee shall be imposed at all, and the above water contract and use shall be made.

A thorough examination of the contents of the dam rules, etc., which are the basis for calculating the completion of construction works, the dam managed by the plaintiff

throughout the total quantity of water to be supplied (e.g., discharge) the Defendants actually draw and use the water.

Charges on the volume of water intake calculated by means of a measuring instrument, etc. installed in advance for the quantity of water;

It is only the determination of the water fee to be paid by the Defendants by multiplying the unit price by the unit price.

(2) As seen earlier, the contract for the use of dam water is a result of the analysis of water balance by the river management agency.

In cases where it is deemed that there is no longer available volume of river flow, the river shall be based on the relevant laws and regulations.

Any river that is entered into in accordance with a patent disposition of the material material patent called a permit to use the water,

Permission for use of river water under the Act and the legal characteristics of the contract for use of dam water under the Act;

Taking into account the purport, the Plaintiff, a right for dam use, derived from the Defendants according to the dam water use contract.

The subject of a water charge may be imposed on one user, through a dam, supplied by the plaintiff (Discharge) through the dam.

It is reasonable to see that water itself means water, and 3. Various kinds of cases submitted by the plaintiff in relevant cases, etc.

Even upon examining the overall contents of the document, the Plaintiff, in principle, via a dam managed by the Plaintiff.

on the basis of the volume of water collected from the user for such water to be discharged.

prior to the construction of a dam, the user has already obtained a permit to use river water before such construction.

(h) In the case of the volume of water taken from a river, the water use fee shall be deemed as the volume of water acquired and used.

under the premise that a contract for the use of dam water has been entered into with the user on the premise that no tax has been imposed.

As the defendants' assertion, all documents submitted by the plaintiff in the relevant case, etc. shall be recorded.

The original natural nature of the water released by the Plaintiff from the initial to the dam solely with an ambiguous expression

For the purposes of this case with an intention to receive water fees only for the remainder except for the river water flown.

It is difficult to see that the contract was concluded, and there are other objective circumstances to acknowledge it.

(4) Specific sentences of the relevant laws, such as Article 15 and Article 16 of the Construction Work Act;

Even if examining the contents of the text, the Plaintiff is simply entitled to receive the water fee.

Water supplied by the resource development facilities or waterworks, among water taken and used by the user;

Only the two forms, etc. are defined by the Defendants, and, as so claimed by the Defendants, was naturally flowed.

The distinction between water from a river and the water additionally supplied by a dam and only the subsequent person shall be subject to the imposition of the water fee.

(5) Article 35(1) of the Dam Act pointed out by the Defendants

In the case of "water stored in a dam", the determination under Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Dam Act is made;

(b) the general provisions and purport of the Act, and the ordinary terms of water storage;

In light of the personal example, it is the result of preventing the flow of a river with a structure called a dam.

of the water stored by the dam. It seems to have a mere meaning to the extent that the water is stored by the dam.

Furthermore, the above provision is merely a person who uses stored water in the dam by the holder of a right for dam use, etc.

In principle, water use fees shall be collected, but the permission for use of river water has been obtained before the construction of the dam.

(1) If there is a person, it shall be limited to the amount of acquisition and repair under the principle of the protection of trust for such person.

In principle, exceptional causes on the basis of the principle of beneficiary burden by allowing to take water.

for the purpose of protecting the right holder, and such a provision shall be deemed to have been established in order to protect the right holder.

In light of the legislative intent of the Defendants, the above provision is naturally and naturally from before dam construction.

With respect to the flow of river water, the user shall be permitted to use river water under the River Act before the dam is constructed.

may be taken and used without consideration even after the construction of the dam, regardless of whether it has been received or not.

to the effect that it appears to be reasonable to interpret to the effect that it is 7), 6. Furthermore, the construction of a dam

A body for the construction of a dam, one of the main purposes of which is naturally flowing before the construction of the dam;

The continuous and stable supply of water is possible even in the dry season through the water management.

In terms of the creation of a record, river water naturally flowed before the construction of a dam.

Even if they were to have been properly managed and adjusted through a dam after the construction of the dam, that dam is immediately managed and adjusted.

It does not constitute a water which has been increased or made available due to construction, so it does not constitute a water which has been increased or made available;

From this point of view, the defendants' assertion is difficult to obtain hotly, and all other circumstances, including the fact that the defendants' assertion is difficult to obtain.

In light of the above, this part of the Defendants’ assertion regarding the subject matter of water fee payment also accepted.

It is difficult to do so.

3) As to the allegation of revocation of a contract on the ground of mistake as to the subject matter of the instant water contract

The defendants' assertion that the subject matter of the contract is the subject matter of the water fee under the water contract of this case.

as seen above, however, is not limited to the goods supplied by the dam, only one of the following:

The process and course of concluding the instant water contract based on the facts and evidence as seen earlier

prescribed, the specific terms of the pertinent water contract and the provisions of the relevant laws and regulations, and between the Plaintiff and the Defendants

the Defendants’ specific behavior attitude and the circumstances at the time after the conclusion of the above water contract; and

In full view of the circumstances such as the contents of the official questioning sent by Gohap to the Ministry of Administration and Home Affairs, the Defendants’ above facts are examined.

In concluding a water contract, the subject matter of the above water contract is added by the dam.

under the recognition that the water is limited to the water being supplied, the payment of the water shall be made only by mistake.

It is difficult to view that the instant water contract was concluded, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, according to the above facts and evidence, the Defendants concluded the instant water supply contract.

Plaintiff, for a period of up to the first half of 2008, pursuant to the above water contract and relevant statutes, etc., for a period of up to the police officer.

actually measured through measuring instruments, etc. installed in advance, out of the total quantity of water to be discharged.

The water fee imposed by the Plaintiff on the basis of the volume of water intake shall not be raised without any particular objection.

The Defendants’ assertion on this part, which is premised on mistake as to the subject matter of contract, is also arguable.

There is no reason to examine the issue.

4) As to the allegation of invalidity of a contract due to an original impossibility of performance

As seen earlier, the water stored in a dam for which the Plaintiff’s right to use the dam was established shall be the same as the Defendants’ assertion

subsection (1) of this section may not be interpreted to be limited to the water supplied in addition to the water supplied by each dam.

under the presumption that all of the street supplied water has been destroyed, by the original impossibility of performance by the Defendants

The ground of invalidity of the water contract of this case was not only erroneous but also erroneous.

In light of all the circumstances admitted by the evidence, the Plaintiff pointed out by the Defendants.

The plaintiff's right to use the dam established in the Han River and Chungcheong Dam at each time pursuant to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

Within the extent of the volume of leisure, the Defendants entered into the instant water contract lawfully with the Defendants, and dams accordingly.

Since it appears that water has been supplied, this part of the defendants' assertion is not accepted.

of this section.

5) As to the assertion on invalid terms and conditions under the Standardized Contracts Act

Even if the dam rules constitute the terms and conditions of the terms and conditions under the terms and conditions as asserted by the Defendants

The subject of the payment of water charges under the water contract of this case is additionally supplied by the dam.

section 17(1) of the Dam Regulations concerning the calculation of water fees unless it is deemed that it is limited to water;

The water taken by the Defendants under the main sentence of subparagraph 1 and Article 19 (1) of the same Regulations shall be additionally offered by a dam.

Provisions applicable on the assumption that the facts that such goods are supplied are clearly demonstrated;

Since there is no basis to interpret the above, the above dam is not interpreted as above.

This part of the defendants' assertion to the effect that the provisions are invalid under the Terms and Conditions Act is also invalid.

Furthermore, there is no reason to view. 8)

C. Sub-determination

Therefore, the Defendants are not paid for the Plaintiff under the instant water contract, as shown in attached Form 1.

each of the amounts set forth in the records and each of them, as sought by the Plaintiff, to the Defendants

Defendant Gwangju-si, whose record is obvious on the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, from August 30, 201, to August 30, 201:

The Namyang-si, the defendant Leecheon-si, the defendant Pyeong-gun, the defendant Pyeong-gun, and the defendant Pyeong-gun, respectively, from August 27, 201 to August 27, 2011.

The delay in calculating the rate of 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings until the date of full payment.

A person is liable to pay damages individually.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants of this case shall be accepted on the grounds that all of the claims of this case are reasonable,

It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jae-in

Judges Lee Jong-soo

Judges Lee hee-hee

1) The standard regress shall be the basic quantity of river flow management, which shall take effect once every 10 years out of the regressing quantity of each year (10 years).

A decision shall be made after deliberation by a certain institution and organization by processing the probability from the volume of reed during the period, or by processing the probability from the volume of reed in each year.

means.

2) The used volume of water is currently the quantity of water that can be permitted in a river, and the method of calculation is as follows:

[The standard regress = - The aggregate of permitted quantities (the aggregate of maximum quantities that can be used by river water users for one day) + the aggregate of disposable quantities (after the use of river water)

The aggregate of the quantities back to the river) - The flow quantity for river maintenance (the minimum flow necessary to maintain the normal function and condition of the river)

section 51 of the River Act, etc.)

3) The term “water balance analysis” means the calculation of the volume of water used in a river as seen above, and the Defendants’ analysis of water balance by the Government is in accordance with the Enforcement Decree of the River Act.

In addition to the right to be affected by a formal announcement made by the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs as well as the right to be affected by the uneffective standard conflicts

In addition, it is not possible to secure a river due to the violation of the River Act. In addition, it is not possible to secure a river due to the violation of the River Act.

It argues that it is illegal and unjust for reasons such as that it was conducted on the basis of the publicly notified river flows.

4) The Defendants neglected to exercise the authority to adjust river water granted by the Government of the River Act, and operated in inefficient and efficient manner the permission for agricultural water in the Han River basin.

by asserting that river water in the standard reed quantity has been neglected to the effect that it was structural waste.

5) The Defendants, in light of the effects of dam storage recognized through various academic studies, research reports, etc. and the ratio of the actual required volume of oil to the effect of the dam storage:

The volume of water additionally supplied by the 3 multi-purpose dams managed by the Plaintiff (scopic dams, Chungcheong dams, and Scopical Dam) shall be 22.50 million tons per annum, in which the volume of water being additionally supplied by the Plaintiff is 500 million tons.

The flow required by consumers during the dry season shall not be more than 4.7 billion tons per annum, and the flow collected by consumers at a time other than the dry season.

In such a case, it asserts to the effect that the aforementioned dam water was naturally flowing prior to the construction of the dam, which is not entirely related to the dam water.

6) The Defendants: (a) the volume of discharge of three multi-purpose dams on the upper stream of the above Paldang Dam managed by the Plaintiff; (b) the volume of discharge of such three multi-purpose dams (c) and the volume of discharge of such arms and dams.

The ratio of discharge of the above three dams between 2005 and 2010 to the average 53.5% of the discharge of the above three dams during the period from 2005 to 2010.

on the one hand, this seems to be due to the inflows of water from the basin and the processed water from the sale bank, and in fact, the government is actually taking it through the sale dam.

Considering the circumstances that the Plaintiff did not receive any water fee for water, most of the quantity of water taken by the Defendants in the vicinity of the Yongsan Dam.

The plaintiff asserts that it was derived from neighboring river water not related to dam water.

7) Meanwhile, in the case of “water made available due to the construction of a dam” as stated in Article 3 of the Dam Rules pointed out by the Defendants, above:

In full view of the overall circumstances and the detailed language and text of the provisions of the dam, the meaning of the language and text to the extent of water being supplied through the dam.

I merely interpret the United States and interpret it as water except natural river water, which is increased only by dam construction, such as the defendants' assertion.

v. n.

8) Meanwhile, although the Defendants are not clear, the Plaintiff has already received water fees exceeding the construction cost of a dam from the Defendants.

The defendant has claimed excessive water charges beyond the legitimate scope by applying excessive unit price compared to production cost, etc.

Since the instant water contract claims to the effect that it is invalid in terms of imposing excessive obligation to pay water fee, we can see that the instant water contract is invalid.

As seen above, the Defendants entered into the instant water contract with the Plaintiff and set forth the pertinent water contract and relevant laws and regulations, etc.

The first agreement was made to pay the Plaintiff the water fee calculated, and accordingly, the water fee for the Defendants is calculated to the extent legitimate.

As long as the water fee calculated as above was excessive from the standpoint of the defendants, no ground for invalidation exists in the water contract of this case itself.

Therefore, this part of the defendants' assertion cannot be accepted.

9) The former River Act (amended by Act No. 8338 of Apr. 6, 2007) (amended by Act No. 8338 of Apr. 6, 200) provides for permission to use river water under Article 50 of the current River Act.

Unlike the separate provisions, the provisions of Article 33, such as the permission to occupy and use the river, have been stipulated together, and the contents of the provisions are as follows:

The same shall apply.

former River Act (amended by Act No. 8338 of April 6, 2007)

Article 33 (Permission, etc. for Occupancy of Rivers)

(1) Any person who intends to perform an act falling under any of the following subparagraphs (hereinafter referred to as "occupiation and use") in a river area shall be governed by the Presidential Decree:

shall obtain permission from the management agency: Provided, That this permission shall be necessary to prevent pollution caused by river contamination and other harm to public health and sanitation.

one additional note shall be attached.

1. Use of flowing water (including flowing water from the river bed);

A person shall be appointed.