1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 34,44,00 for Plaintiff A and its related costs from December 1, 2017 to Plaintiff B; and (b) KRW 58,794,00 for Plaintiff B.

1. Facts without dispute;

A. The Plaintiffs acquired the contractual status from the purchaser of each land (the “relevant land” as indicated below) within the project district of the housing site development project for which the Korea Land and Housing Corporation completed the housing site development project, and newly constructed each building on each of the relevant land (hereinafter “each of the instant buildings”).

(hereinafter referred to as “instant housing site development project.” The said housing site development project of the Korea Land and Housing Corporation is prescribed as “the instant housing site development project.” The amount to be paid (cost) by the Plaintiff on the date of payment of the relevant land 1 A shall be D 34,444,00 on November 30, 2017, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seoul (the parcel number is changed to F) 2 B B on March 28, 2016 (the change to F)

B. The Director of the Clean Water Business Bureau, in his Bocheon-si, imposed a disposition imposing the burden on each of the plaintiffs on the burden of water supply (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”), and the plaintiffs paid it as listed in the following table.

2. Determination

A. 1) In order for an administrative disposition defective in the relevant legal principles to become null and void automatically, such defect must be objectively obvious as it violates an important part of the relevant law. In determining whether a defect is significant and obvious, the purpose, meaning, function, etc. of the relevant law should be examined from a teleological perspective, as well as reasonable consideration of the specificity of the specific case itself (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2010Du10907, Feb. 16, 2012). Meanwhile, in cases where an administrative disposition was taken by applying a certain provision of a law to a certain legal relation or factual relationship, if there is room for dispute over the interpretation of the law because the legal principle that the provision of the law cannot be applied to such legal relation or factual relations is not clearly revealed, and thus, it is likely to mislead the fact that the administrative disposition was taken by wrong interpretation.