1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

The court's explanation of this case is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and it is identical with the part concerning the plaintiffs in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the court decides otherwise as to the plaintiffs' assertion as stated in paragraph (3). Thus, it is so accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(The grounds for appeal by the plaintiffs are not significantly different from the allegations in the first instance court, and the fact-finding and determination in the first instance court are deemed legitimate, considering all the allegations and evidence submitted in this court, even if they were to be comprehensively considered as a whole). The 5th 9th eth 9 to 15th eth 7th eth son of the first instance court

“E. The Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the Changwon District Court Decision 2017Guhap51417, February 2, 2017, seeking revocation of the imposition of the usage fee of the sewerage from February 19, 2017, and the above court rendered a judgment revoking the above disposition on September 19, 2018, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on October 12, 2018. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs were fully refunded the amount of the usage fee of the sewerage from February 2, 2017 to April 2017. The main point of the argument is that the Plaintiffs are equipped with separate sewage treatment facilities, and only use of the sewage culvert (public sewage culvert) excluding the Defendant’s public sewage treatment facilities, and the rate of the usage fee of the entire usage fee of the sewage is merely 8.27%, and thus, the Defendant should have reduced the user fee in accordance with the principle of the beneficiary burden.

Nevertheless, the Defendant’s disposition imposing the same charges as the fees for the entire public sewerage facilities on the Plaintiffs is null and void as the defect is significant and apparent. As such, the part exceeding the usage fees for sewage pipes collected from the Plaintiffs constitutes unjust enrichment.

Judgment

2. As seen earlier.