[1] The requirements to constitute "public sewerage" under Article 2 (2) 2-2 of the Sewerage Act

[2] Whether a sewage discharger in a drainage area is liable for the payment of the sewage fee regardless of whether the sewage discharger actually uses the sewage facility (negative)

[1] If a certain facility constitutes a public sewerage system under Article 2-2 of the Sewerage Act, it shall be an artificial structure or facility in which a local government acquires and manages the right to use from another person directly or directly installed by the local government.

[2] It is reasonable to interpret that only the person who actually discharges sewage using the public sewerage as the price for the use of the public sewerage is liable for the payment of the sewage fee depending on the quantity of the sewage. In a case where the sewage discharger within the drainage area violates the obligation to discharge sewage to the public sewerage or to install the drainage system pursuant to Article 24 of the Sewerage Act, it cannot be deemed that the person is liable for the payment of the sewage fee immediately regardless of whether the person actually uses the public sewerage facilities, regardless of the fact that there is the obligation under such public law.

[1] Article 2 subparagraph 2-2 of the Sewerage Act / [2] Articles 21 (1), 24 (1), and 32 of the Sewerage Act, Article 14-2 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Sewerage Act

[2] Supreme Court Decision 2002Da70051 Delivered on June 24, 2003

SK Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Won, Attorneys Kim Sung-hwan et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Ulsan Metropolitan City Water Supply Headquarters Director (Law Firm International Law Firm, Attorneys Ha Man-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Busan High Court Decision 2000Nu3511 delivered on September 14, 2001

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. According to Article 2 of the Sewerage Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), the term “sewage” means the conduits of sewage, sewage terminal treatment facilities, and other structures and facilities installed to eliminate or treat sewage, and the term “public sewerage” means the sewerage installed or managed by a local government. Thus, if a certain facility intends to constitute a public sewerage system, it should be an artificial structure or facility that a local government directly installs or directly installs, acquires and manages the right to use, etc. from another person.

The lower court determined that it was difficult for Ulsan Metropolitan City Mayors to establish and publicly announce the commencement of use and drainage area of the public sewerage in accordance with the framework plan for sewerage management on September 15, 1983. The lower court determined that the construction of sewage terminal treatment facilities for the treatment of sewage of the current Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-do, and Ulsan-do, and the construction of the sewage terminal treatment facilities for the treatment of sewage of the daily source of the water from Ulsan-do, and that the sewage terminal treatment facilities were operated from January 1, 1995 after the completion of the construction of the above sewage terminal treatment facilities. Meanwhile, the lower court determined that it was difficult for the Plaintiff to construct and operate the above wastewater terminal within the above drainage area for the treatment of wastewater to comprehensively construct and operate the water purification facilities for the treatment of sewage of the first time, and that the Plaintiff’s construction and operation of wastewater discharge facilities for the treatment of sewage of the first time through the Han-gu, Seoul-gu, as well as the instant wastewater treatment facilities for the treatment of sewage of the first time.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, relevant statutes, and the above legal principles, it is just to recognize and determine the judgment below, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, incomplete deliberation, incomplete reasoning, and misapprehension of legal principles as to the public sewerage and drainage area under the Sewerage Act. Therefore, all of the grounds of appeal on this point are without merit

2. The usage relationship of public sewerage is the public law relationship, and the imposition and collection relationship of the user fee of public sewerage also is the rights and obligations relationship under public law. However, in full view of the relevant provisions such as Article 21(1) of the Act, Article 14-2(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, and Article 19 of the Ulsan Metropolitan City Sewerage Ordinance, the user fee of public sewerage differs from the amount borne by the person responsible for the burden under Article 32 of the Act. Thus, it is reasonable to interpret that only the person who actually discharges sewage using public sewerage is liable for the payment of the user fee of the public sewerage depending on the amount of the sewage. In a case where the sewage discharger within the drainage area violates the obligation to pay the user fee of the public sewerage or to install the drainage system in accordance with Article 24 of the Act, there is no other legal basis to interpret that the person is liable for the payment of the user fee of the public sewerage immediately regardless of the actual use of the sewage facility.

Examining the relevant statutes and the record in light of the above legal principles, the court below's view that only the person who actually discharges sewage using a public sewerage system is liable to pay the sewage fee, and that the court below is justified to determine that the Plaintiff is not liable to pay the sewage fee unless the Plaintiff discharges sewage generated from the above wastewater treatment plant through a public sewerage system, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the nature of the law and the sewage fee. Accordingly, there is no ground for appeal as to this point.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)