The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance.

1. Basic facts

A. On or around December 2011, the Plaintiff is a person who newly constructs and operates a total of 59 households Dtel (hereinafter “instant building”) in Busan-gu, Busan-gu, and the Defendant is an employee who works in the North Korean branch office of the Water Supply Headquarters of Busan Metropolitan City.

B. From April 2017, the Plaintiff raised an objection to the head of the Water Supply Headquarters North Korea (hereinafter “the head of the North Korea Business Headquarters”) of Busan Metropolitan City (hereinafter “the head of the Water Supply Headquarters”) that excessive water consumption of the instant building is measured.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 2 and 8, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion was made by the defendant in the process of filing a civil petition on the grounds that the amount of the water rate is excessive, and thus, the defendant is obligated to pay consolation money of KRW 9,00,000 to the plaintiff.

① Although there was a separate person in charge of the Plaintiff’s filing of a civil petition, the Defendant made an inquiry to the Defendant himself/herself, and sent a false document to the Plaintiff, thereby causing mental and material damage to the Plaintiff.

② The Plaintiff filed a civil petition on the grounds that the water rate for October and December of 2017 is excessive. However, the Defendant did not take follow-up measures (e.g., identification of the water capacity, replacement of measuring instruments, maintenance, etc.) under Article 32(2) of the Busan Metropolitan City Ordinance on Water Supply after the performance test of measuring instruments (hereinafter “Water Supply Ordinance”).

③ Although the water rate from December 9, 2017 to December 21, 2017 was zero due to the failure of the construction company to connect the water to the verification measuring instruments, it is unreasonable for the Defendant to impose KRW 194,730 on the Plaintiff the water rate of KRW 194,730 on the Plaintiff.

④ Although it was required to inform about the comparison and analysis of measuring instruments for testing and measuring instruments for testing, it was rejected.

(5) A failure is found as a result of a performance testing of measuring instruments for inspection of the building of this case around September 2018.