logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2013.10.17 2013나2010183
부당이득금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning the instant case is as follows, except for the following additional determination as to the matters alleged in the court of first instance (including the preparatory documents submitted on October 7, 2014 after the conclusion of pleadings), and therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The 1 and 2 Convention null and void of the 1 and 2 Convention are null and void in violation of Article 23 of the Housing Act. In other words, according to the 1 and 2 Convention, all or part of the costs of installing gas arterial facilities in advance as facility contributions to the Plaintiff is a housing construction business entity or housing site creation business entity (hereinafter “housing construction business entity, etc.”).

It is against the purpose of Article 23 of the Housing Act, which is a mandatory law that provides that a gas supplier shall bear it.

However, a gas supplier is only entitled to have a gas user share all or part of the costs of installing gas supply facilities, including the above-mentioned gas arterial facilities, pursuant to Article 19-2 of the Urban Gas Business Act, and cannot have the said project undertaker share the costs by concluding an individual agreement with a housing construction business operator, etc. Such purport does not change to the fact that the “gas user” under Article 19-2(1) of the former Urban Gas Business Act was amended into the “person who requests gas supply” under the current law.

In other words, urban gas business falls under a key industry under the Housing Act, and its installation cost is first borne by the urban gas business entity such as the defendant. However, it is only possible for the government to subsidize the cost or share a certain portion of the cost to the gas user.

In addition, the purpose of Article 19-2 of the Urban Gas Business Act is to relieve the burden of urban gas business operators, who are time business operators, to overcome their operational difficulties.

arrow