[1] Whether it is possible to demand that residents be granted the same benefits as those to which benefits are granted in cases where such benefits are interpreted not to be included in the subject to which benefits are granted in light of the language and text of the municipal ordinances, etc. providing benefits to residents (negative in principle

[2] The case holding that in a case where an administrative agency's approval for the construction of water supply facilities according to the implementation of a redevelopment project and imposed a certain amount of facility contributions uniformly without distinguishing the households residing in the existing area from those living in the project implementer, the imposition of facility contributions to the existing generation does not violate the principle of double charges under Article 5 (1) of the Framework Act on the Management of Charges

[1] The ordinances, etc. that offer benefits to residents are recognized as a broad range of legislative formation, rather than where the rights of residents are restricted or new obligations are imposed. Meanwhile, in a case where the provision of benefits is interpreted as not being included in the subject of benefits as a result of the literal and logical interpretation of such ordinances, etc., even though it would be somewhat unreasonable in comparison with the subject of benefits, the said provision may not be demanded to grant such benefits unless any additional legislative measures are taken.

[2] In a case where an administrative agency approves the construction of water supply facilities in accordance with the implementation of a redevelopment project and imposes a certain amount of facility contributions uniformly without distinguishing the households that have resided in the existing project implementer from the households that newly move in, the case holding that the imposition disposition of facility contributions to the existing generation does not violate the principle of double charges as stipulated in Article 5 (1) of the Framework Act on the Management of Charges on Facilities, inasmuch as there is no provision on the reduction of facility contributions to the existing households in the related Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Water Supply and Waterworks Ordinance, and there is no additional legislative measure, unless there is no provision on the reduction of facility contributions to the existing households at the time of the imposition of facility contributions, and since the existing water supply facilities are all removed and new water supply facilities are installed, the imposition of facility contributions to the new water supply

[1] Article 13 (1) of the Local Autonomy Act / [2] Article 5 (1) of the Framework Act on the Management of Charges

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2007Hu42 decided Jun. 12, 2008 (Gong2008Ha, 982)

Plaintiff (Law Firm Tae, Attorneys Lee Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The head of the Dong-gu Gwangju Metropolitan City Waterworks Project Headquarters (Attorney Park Jong-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Gwangju High Court Decision 2007Nu2196 decided October 2, 2008

The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant regarding the facility contributions shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Gwangju High Court. The remaining appeals shall be dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

Upon citing the judgment of the court of first instance, the court below determined that the disposition of the water supply construction cost of this case based on the public notice of this case is unlawful since the public notice of this case is against the purpose of delegation of the water supply ordinance and the principle of proportionality, on the premise that the fixed construction cost system is to solve various problems arising from calculating and imposing the expenses actually incurred in water supply and to enhance the efficiency of administration, and thus, it is contrary to the principle of cost-bearing even if it is intended to enhance the efficiency of administration, so it should reflect the calculation elements as much as possible in the relevant laws and regulations to ensure that the difference is not excessive. In light of the records, the above determination of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interpretation of the water supply ordinance, the purport of the fixed construction cost system, and the principle of proportionality as asserted in the grounds of appeal.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below, citing the judgment of the court of first instance, determined that the facility contributions corresponding to the existing household portion among the facility contributions of this case, among the facility contributions of this case, was unlawful in violation of the principle of double-charges under Article 5 (1) of the Framework Act on the Management of Charges, considering the following circumstances: (a) the existing residents who resided before the redevelopment project of this case moved from the redevelopment project of this case and moved out from the redevelopment project of this case; (b) the existing water supply facility was not additionally incurred due to the implementation of the redevelopment project of this case; and (c) the current Water Supply Ordinance provides for

However, we cannot accept the above judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

The municipal ordinances, etc. that grant benefits to residents are recognized as a broad range of legislative formation, rather than a case where the rights of residents are restricted or new obligations are imposed (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Du42, Jun. 12, 2008). Meanwhile, in a case where the text and logical interpretation of the ordinances, etc. are interpreted as not included in the subject to which benefits are granted, even if the benefits are somewhat unreasonable compared to the subject to those to which benefits are granted, they cannot be demanded to grant the same benefits unless additional legislative measures are taken (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Du1839, Jun. 23, 2009).

However, according to the records, the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Water Supply Ordinance, did not have any provision concerning the reduction of facility contributions for the existing households at the time of the imposition of facility contributions, and the existing water supply facilities due to the redevelopment project of this case are all demolished and new water supply facilities are installed. According to the above legal principles, the plaintiff cannot claim the reduction of the existing residential households out of the facility contributions of this case, unless there is any additional legislative measure. Meanwhile, as long as the existing water supply facilities are all demolished and new water supply facilities are installed, the new water supply facilities contributions for the new water supply facilities cannot be deemed the same as the facility contributions for the previous water supply facilities, and this is also the same as for the existing households out of the facility contributions of this case. Thus, the imposition of facility contributions for the existing households cannot be deemed a double imposition of the charges in violation of Article 5 (1) of the Framework Act on the Management of Charges.

Nevertheless, the court below's determination that the disposition of imposition of facility contributions to the existing household portion among the facility contributions in this case violates the principle of double-charges, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal principles as to the principle of double-charges. The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant regarding the facility contributions is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. The remaining appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)