Degree of proof on the legality of a disposition imposing water charges;

If it is proved that there is no defect in the water meter and the indoor drain pipe in the lawsuit of revocation of imposition on the ground that the water fee has been imposed excessively, the disposition agency can be deemed to have proved the legality of the disposition.

Article 9 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Plaintiff

The head of Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 80Gu588 delivered on August 19, 1981

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal.

In an appeal litigation seeking the revocation of an administrative disposition, it is identical to the theory that the burden of proof of the legality of the administrative disposition is against the relevant disposition agency. However, in the event that the Defendant seeks the revocation on the grounds that the water rate imposed as in the instant case was imposed excessively than the actual quantity, as long as the Defendant did not function of measuring instruments, which are mechanical facilities measuring the water consumption of consumers, and the indoor drain pipes connected to the said measuring instruments do not have any defects such as water leakage, the Defendant shall be deemed to have proved the legality of imposing the water rate on the basis of the water use quantity indicated in the said measuring instruments.

The court below is justified in holding that, based on the evidence submitted by the defendant, the plaintiff does not have any error in the function of the measuring instruments installed in the water supply facilities of the building used by the plaintiff, and the use quantity of confirmation in June 1979 is 3,885 cubic meters, which was at issue, and the use quantity in August thereafter is at least 988 cubic meters, and the usage quantity in October is at least 936 cubic meters, and there is no error in water leakage or other defects in the indoor drainage pipes other than the measuring instruments (if the excessive use quantity is marked due to water leakage in the indoor drainage pipe, the usage quantity after six months should be similar to six months, unless the water source is removed). Accordingly, the court below rejected the plaintiff's anti-certificates asserted by the defendant, and then the defendant's disposition of imposition of the water use fee of this case is legitimate.

As above, the court below's determination that Nos. 1 and 2-1 of the Nos. 1-2 (A. 1-2) was a document stating the result of the examination at the water services management office, which is an affiliated agency of Seoul Special Metropolitan City to which the defendant belongs, and its credibility or fairness cannot be determined (in addition, if the No. 4 was written, the defendant's confirmation of the plaintiff's presence at the above water services management office's measuring instrument testing). Further, even if the above verification was performed the measuring instrument's function at the time of the verification and it was proved that the function at the time of the verification was normal, unless there were special circumstances, it is reasonable to presume that the previous use was normal even during the period unless there were special circumstances. Thus, it is not reasonable to conclude that the judgment of the court below violated the rules of evidence and determined evidence that deviates from the scope of free evaluation of evidence, and that there was an error of law in incomplete deliberation and insufficient reasoning.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)