Plaintiff (Law Firm Tae, Attorneys Lee Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The head of the Dong-gu Gwangju Metropolitan City Waterworks Project Headquarters (Attorney Park Jong-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

September 1, 2008

Gwangju District Court Decision 2007Guhap382 Decided November 8, 2007

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of the water supply construction cost against the Plaintiff on August 29, 2006 that exceeds 110,376,000 won out of the facility contributions of 165,816,00 won shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. The issues of the instant case and the judgment of the first instance court

The key issue of the instant case is: (a) the Plaintiff applied for the implementation of the construction of an apartment house of 658 households implemented by the Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association in the Dong-gu in Gwangju-gu (number omitted; (b) the Defendant applied for the new construction of an apartment house of 33,709,00 won (supply cost of 159,97,000 won, facility contributions of 165,816,000 won, material inspection fees of 3,948,948,000 won, material inspection fees of 3,948,000 won, and 3,948,000 won); (c) in relation to the water supply construction cost of Gwangju-gu, Gwangju-gu, 200, the Defendant imposed the same view as the existing principle of proportion to the amount of new water supply charges of 200-161, which is against the principle of proportion to the amount of the charges imposed by the Defendant for the new water supply installation charges of 33,709,00.

First, with respect to the instant water supply construction cost, the first instance court acknowledged the fact that the actual cost of the instant water supply construction was KRW 17,580,000, and determined that the instant public notice was significantly unlawful in light of the fact that KRW 159,997,00 imposed according to the instant public notice exceeded nine times the actual construction cost, etc., and that the instant public notice clearly contradicts the purpose of delegation and proportionality of the municipal ordinance, and that the part concerning the water supply construction cost of the instant disposition based on the said public notice was also unlawful.

Next, the first instance court acknowledged the fact that 220 households, among the 658 households of the above apartment complex, had resided in the above zone before the redevelopment project was implemented, with respect to the existing households, it appears that additional expenses incurred in the maintenance and operation of production facilities, such as water purification plants and drainage stations, are not incurred due to the execution of the above redevelopment project, and Article 12 (6) of the Gwangju Metropolitan City Water Supply Ordinance of 12 (6) of the current Enforcement Decree of the Water Supply Act provides that "where a new water supply project is applied for after being abolished due to reconstruction, etc., it may deduct the facility contributions from the existing water supply before the existing water period," the disposition of this case which imposed the facility contributions again on the existing residential households which already paid the facility contributions is unlawful in violation of the principle of double charges, and the legitimate facility contributions are determined as 10,376,000 won [=252,000 won x 438 households - 220 households].

However, considering the result of pleadings, it is recognized that the first instance court's determination on water supply construction cost and facility contributions is correct.

2. Quotation and conclusion of the judgment of the first instance;

Therefore, the reason why the court uses this case is the same as the column of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is citing this in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the revocation of the part of the water supply cost of KRW 159,97,00 among the disposition of this case and the facility contribution of KRW 165,816,00, which exceeds KRW 110,376,000 among the facility contributions, shall be accepted for the reasons. The judgment of the court of first instance is justified with this conclusion, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the defendant's appeal.

Judges Donsung (Presiding Judge)