beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 103,768,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 1.6% per annum from March 25, 2017 to March 18, 2018; and (b) March 2018 for the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Korea Land and Housing Corporation implemented the housing site development project (hereinafter “instant housing site development project”) on the land in Dong-dong, Nam-gu, Dong-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City.
B. On June 26, 2015, the Plaintiff (the Plaintiff Co., Ltd.) purchased from the Defendant and the Korea Land and Housing Corporation the land of this case large 1,020.64 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) for the instant land on the grounds of sale on March 30, 2016.
C. The Plaintiff newly constructed a ten-story building on the instant land (hereinafter “instant building”) and completed registration of initial ownership on June 20, 2017.
Around March 1, 2017, the Director of the clean Water Business Bureau under the Defendant’s jurisdiction imposed the Plaintiff a water supply charge of KRW 103,768,00 with respect to the water supply works of the instant building (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
E. On March 24, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 103,768,000 to the Plaintiff.
【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleading
2. Determination
A. 1) In order for an administrative disposition defective in the relevant legal doctrine to become null and void automatically, such defect must be objectively obvious as it violates the important part of the relevant law. In determining whether the defect is significant and apparent, the purpose, meaning, function, etc. of the relevant law should be examined from a teleological perspective, and a 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 a certain legal relation or factual relationship, the relevant legal principle is not clearly revealed, and thus, the relevant interpretation is impermissible.