1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning of this court’s judgment citing the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of

However, the following judgments are added to the grounds for appeal by the plaintiff.

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Articles 6(3) and 14(4) of the Regulations on the Supply of Urban Gas in Daejeon Metropolitan City (hereinafter “Supply Regulations”) are null and void as it is not delegated by the mother law. 2) In the case of the Plaintiff’s housing, it is included in the plan to establish urban gas supply facilities in Daejeon Metropolitan City, and accordingly, the Plaintiff installed new gas supply pipes.

Article 6 (3) of the supply regulations shall not apply to those who install or use new gas supply pipes, such as the Plaintiff, by a provision that gas users bear part of the installation costs in using the existing gas supply facilities.

3) Although the Defendant did not have installed the lead pipe, without any legal basis, imposed the Plaintiff the construction cost of KRW 418,00 on the Plaintiff. (b) Determination general urban gas business operators shall establish the supply regulations on urban gas charges and other supply terms and obtain approval from the Mayor/Do governor (Article 20 of the Urban Gas Business Act). Accordingly, the Defendant imposed the Plaintiff the share of the general facilities 4th class facility charges and the share of the discounted pipeline charges on the Plaintiff based on the supply regulations approved by the Daejeon Metropolitan City Mayor (Article 20). As such, the supply regulations are effective as delegated by the mother Act. In addition, the Plaintiff applied for the supply of urban gas on February 9, 2017 (B-2) and Article 6(3) of the supply regulations are also applied to the gas users intending to receive a new supply of urban gas as to the Plaintiff. Moreover, according to the evidence No. 3, the fact that the Defendant contracted the installation of the lead pipe to the Plaintiff (the Plaintiff), which is the Plaintiff, was also acknowledged.