1. The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a housing reconstruction and rearrangement project association established to implement a housing reconstruction and rearrangement project in the 626-99-dong Seoul Metropolitan City, and the Defendant is an urban gas supplier who installs urban gas pipelines included in the above project district and supplies urban gas.

B. In the process of a reconstruction project, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to remove gas pipelines in the said project district (hereinafter “gas pipelines in this case”), and the Defendant filed a claim with the Plaintiff for totaling KRW 174,062,90 (excluding the remaining amount of KRW 156,48,000, the operating expenses of KRW 1,751,000, and each additional tax) for the costs incurred from the removal of the gas pipelines in this case on April 30, 2015. The Plaintiff paid the said amount around May 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy,

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. According to Article 7(2) of the standards for calculating costs for supplying urban gas facilities, the method of depreciating urban gas supply facilities shall be the straight line method, and the content thereof shall be calculated as the standard service life under the tax law at the time of acquisition of assets. The standard service life is 11 years from September 27, 1985 to March 29, 195 pursuant to the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act at the time when gas pipelines are installed, from March 30, 1995 to May 23, 1999, 16 years from March 30, 1995, from May 24, 199 to February 22, 2013, the remaining value of the gas pipelines of this case calculated as appropriate after 20 years from May 24, 199 to February 22, 2013.

However, the Defendant arbitrarily applied the content of 30 years to calculate the remaining value of the gas pipeline of this case as KRW 156,48,000, and received it from the Plaintiff, and the Defendant is obligated to return the excess amount of KRW 165,813,540 (including KRW 156,48,00 - 5,748,419, and value added tax) paid to the Plaintiff.

B. In addition, even if an agreement was reached between the Defendant and the Defendant with the remaining value of the gas pipeline of this case as above, the Plaintiff believed that the remaining value calculated by the Defendant was justifiable, and this is the Plaintiff’s juristic act.