1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 39,514,00 for the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s KRW 1.8% per annum from November 12, 2016 to March 14, 2017; and (b) March 15, 2017.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 29, 2016, the Korea Land and Housing Corporation implemented a housing site development project on the land of Seo-gu Cdong District (hereinafter “instant housing site development project”). On or around March 29, 2016, the Plaintiff purchased a parking lot of 1,776 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) from the Korea Land and Housing Corporation located in the relevant housing site development project zone and completed the registration of ownership transfer in its name on September 8, 2016.

B. Since then, the Plaintiff obtained a building permit from the astronomical mayor to newly construct the instant building and the 1st and second-class neighborhood living facilities (hereinafter “instant building”) on the instant land, and completed registration of initial ownership on September 11, 2017 after completing the construction of the instant building.

C. On November 1, 2016, the Director of the clean Water Business Bureau, the Defendant’s affiliated organization, imposed and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 39,514,00 on the charge of water supply burden on the instant building (hereinafter “instant disposition”), and the Plaintiff paid the said charge on November 11, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. 1) In order for an administrative disposition defective in the relevant legal principles to be null and void automatically, it must be objectively obvious that the defect is in violation of the important part of the relevant legal provisions. In determining whether the defect is significant and obvious, the purpose, meaning, function, etc. of the relevant legal provisions should be considered from a teleological perspective and, at the same time, reasonable consideration should be given on the specificity of the specific case itself (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2010Du10907, Feb. 16, 2012). Meanwhile, in cases where an administrative agency takes an administrative disposition by applying any provision of a law to certain legal relations or factual relations, the relevant legal provisions cannot be applied to such legal relations or factual relations.