Whether the provisions of the former Water Supply and Waterworks Installation Act stipulating that the owner and the manager of the water supply facilities shall be jointly liable for the water rate payment (negative)

The provisions of Articles 2 subparag. 5 and 25 of the Water Supply and Waterworks Installation Act (amended by Act No. 4429 of Dec. 14, 191) shall be deemed to include all other matters necessary for the supply of water under Article 17 of the former Water Supply and Waterworks Installation Act (amended by Act No. 4429 of Dec. 14, 191). Article 32 of the same Act is merely a provision for the compulsory collection of charges, not a provision for the person liable for the payment of charges, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that only the person who received water is the person liable for the payment of charges. Thus, Article 25 of the Water Supply and Waterworks Installation Act of Chuncheon does not become null and void in violation of the former Water Supply and Waterworks Installation Act.

Articles 17 and 32 of the former Water Supply and Waterworks Installation Act (amended by Act No. 4429 of Dec. 14, 1991); Article 2 subparag. 5 and Article 25 of the Chuncheon City Water Supply and Waterworks Ordinance

Plaintiff

Chuncheon City

Chuncheon District Court Decision 94Na235 delivered on May 13, 1994

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Chuncheon District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, Article 2 subparagraph 5 of the Water Supply Ordinance of Defendant City provides that "the term "the user of the water supply facilities" means the user, owner, and manager of the water supply facilities, and Article 25 provides that "the charge shall be collected from the water user, etc. and the water user shall be jointly and severally liable for the payment of the charge." However, Article 17 of the former Water Supply and Waterworks Installation Act (amended by Act No. 4429 of Dec. 14, 191; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that where the water supply business operator is a local government, the rate of the tap water, the cost of construction for the water supply facilities, and other matters necessary for the supply of the water shall be prescribed by the municipal ordinance. Article 32 provides that the purpose of Article 17 of the Act provides that the person who received the water fails to pay the water price of the water, etc. shall be delegated with the establishment of a specific rate for the water supply of the water by the water supply facilities under the premise that the water supplier is the person who received the water supply.

2. However, it is reasonable to view that the scope of the water user is the user, owner, and manager of the water supply system, and all the contents of Articles 2 subparag. 5 and 25 of the Water Supply Ordinance of Defendant Si, which they are jointly and severally liable for the payment of the water, are included in the "other matters necessary for the supply of water" under Article 17 of the Act. Article 32 of the Act is only the provision for the compulsory collection of the water, not the provision for the person liable for the payment of the water, and therefore the person who received the water can not be regarded as the person liable for the payment of the water, and therefore, Article 25 of the Water Supply Ordinance of Defendant Si shall not be deemed as null and void in violation of the former Water Supply and Waterworks Installation Act, which is the mother corporation, and therefore, it is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of the power to enact the Ordinance against the person liable for the payment of the water use fee, which affected the conclusion

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)