(a)Article 34(1) of the Water Supply Ordinance and Article 128(2) of the Local Autonomy Act;

"Cases where a person who uses water supply with approval for the use of water supply has been exempted from the collection of charges or other charges by fraud or other improper means" under the Article 34 (1) of the Seoul Metropolitan Government Water Supply Ordinance includes not only cases where a person who lawfully constructs water supply facilities with approval for the use of water supply has been exempted from the collection of such charges by improper means, but also cases where a person who lawfully constructs water supply facilities with approval for the use of water supply has exempted from the collection of the charges by additional construction of water supply pipes by such unlawful means as linking water supply pipes to other water supply pipes without approval. This legal principle also applies to the interpretation of Article 128 (2) of the Local Autonomy Act.

Article 34 (1) of the Seoul Metropolitan Government Water Supply Ordinance, Article 128 (2) of the Local Autonomy Act

Supreme Court Decision 83Nu473 Decided July 9, 1985

Korea National Housing Corporation (Attorney Lee Jae-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Attorney Kim Chang-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Supreme Court Decision 83Nu473 Decided July 9, 1985

Seoul High Court Decision 85Gu774 delivered on January 13, 1986

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against each of the plaintiff and the defendant.

1. The plaintiff's ground of appeal No. 1 and the defendant's ground of appeal are examined together.

Article 34 (1) of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Water Supply Ordinance provides that "in cases where a person who uses water supply by fraud or other improper means is exempted from the collection of the charges by unlawful means" includes not only cases where a person who uses water supply after obtaining approval for the use of water supply properly is exempted from the collection of the charges, but also cases where a person who lawfully constructs water supply facilities by obtaining approval for the use of water supply systems constructs additional water supply pipes by improper means, such as linking water supply pipes to water supply pipes prior to the water meter and other water supply pipes not approved, and thereby is exempted from the collection of the charges. This legal principle also applies to the interpretation of Article 128 (2) of the Local Autonomy Act.

The court below's decision that the plaintiff newly constructed the above 1980.4.1 was justified by evidence, and the 1980.4.2 of the 1980's new construction of the plaintiff's 1's 00 apartment house "B", and applied for water supply construction works to the above 15's 198's 3's 3's 5's 198's 1's 1's 1's 5's 1's 1'''''''''''''' 3'''''''''''''''' 1''''''''''' 2''' 1'''''''''''''' 8' ''''' ''' '''' ''' '''' '4'''''' ''' '1''''''''' '2'''''''''''1'2''''''''''2'2''' ' '2'4'2' '1'2' '1'1'''''2'.

On the other hand, in light of the facts established by the court below, after the plaintiff transferred the right to manage a commercial building on May 6, 1982 to a village comprehensive shop corporation, the plaintiff is clear that he was not in the position of the user, owner, manager, water supply user, etc. of the water supply facilities under the above Ordinance, and thus, the plaintiff is not liable for the fine for negligence. It is just to impose

Therefore, the appeal by the plaintiff and the defendant is without merit.

2. The plaintiff's ground of appeal No. 2 is examined.

According to Article 10-2 of the Act on the Temporary Measures for Local Autonomy newly established on April 4, 1981, the Do and the Seoul Special Metropolitan City and Metropolitan Cities may provide for a fine for negligence not exceeding 500,000 won by the Municipal Ordinance of the relevant local government. Article 34 (2) of the above Water Supply Ordinance amended on August 10, 1981 by the said delegated provision provides that a fine for negligence not exceeding 50,000 won shall be increased to not more than 50,000 won. The plaintiff's so-called of this case falls under Article 34 (1) of the above Water Supply Ordinance, as well as Article 34 (1) of the above Water Supply Ordinance, which has been continued until May 5, 1982 as a manager of the said three stores, so long as the plaintiff is responsible for a water supply system due to his illegal water supply work, the plaintiff is also obligated to pay the fine for negligence corresponding to Article 34 (2)

In the same view of the court below, the decision of the court below that the defendant imposed a fine for negligence of KRW 1500,000 on the plaintiff is just and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

3. The plaintiff's ground of appeal is examined as third.

Article 128 (2) of the Local Autonomy Act includes cases where a person who is exempted from the collection of fees, fees, and contributions by fraud or other improper means is exempted from the collection of contributions by additional construction of water supply pipes by such unlawful means as linking other water supply pipes without the approval of the market as in this case. Thus, Article 34 (3) of the above Water Supply Ordinance is not Article 9 of the Local Autonomy Act, but Article 128 (2) of the same Act, which states that the ground for delegation is the ground for delegation, and the court below's decision that the defendant's imposition of a fine of KRW 2,520,000 on the above three commercial buildings is legitimate, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as a theory of lawsuit, and there is no ground for appeal.

4. Therefore, all appeals by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each losing party, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)