The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Examining the relevant legal principles and records, the court below is just in holding that the Plaintiff constitutes “a person who requests the supply of urban gas” where a general urban gas business entity may share all or part of installation costs of gas supply facilities pursuant to Article 19-2(1) of the Urban Gas Business Act, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on Article 19-2

2. In the stage of a housing construction project or a housing site preparation project, even if a general urban gas business entity concludes an individual agreement to require a project entity under the Housing Act to bear all or part of its installation costs on the ground of Article 19-2 of the Urban Gas Business Act, such agreement shall be null and void as it violates Article 23 of the Housing

In such cases, a gas supplier, which is a general urban gas business entity, may require a person, etc. who requests the supply of urban gas pursuant to Article 19-2 of the Urban Gas Business Act to share all or part of expenses incurred in installing gas supply facilities, including such gas arterial facilities. However, the standards and procedures for calculating and paying such contributions and for the payment thereof shall not be made in accordance with the Urban Gas Business Act and the Enforcement Decree thereof, etc. as prescribed by the Urban Gas Business Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da1950, 19567, Jun. 28, 2012). However, in a dispute over the existence of the obligation to pay facility contributions under Article 19-2 of the Urban Gas Business Act, a general urban gas business entity shall first be determined by the Urban Gas Business Act and the Enforcement Rule thereof.