1. The revocation of the judgment of the court of first instance (excluding the part invalidated by withdrawal of a lawsuit).

2. The Defendant limited to the Plaintiff on February 9, 2017.

1. This part of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part of the judgment is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of

2. The reasoning of this part of the relevant statutes is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part of the judgment is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

3. The reasoning of the judgment on this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following modifications, and thus, this part of the judgment is cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article

From 3th to 7th as follows: “A. In the event that a building installed with a private sewage treatment facility is incorporated into a public sewage treatment facility, it shall not be subject to the burden of imposing a sewerage charge. It is not necessary to permit or approve a separate change of use to change the purpose of the building from a retail store to a general restaurant. The building of this case had all facilities to change the purpose of use including a private sewage treatment facility at the time of incorporation into a public sewage treatment facility on July 2, 2014, and thus, it can be deemed that the purpose has already been changed to a general restaurant before it is incorporated into a public sewage treatment facility. In addition, since the purpose of the building of this case has not been changed after its incorporation into a public sewage treatment facility, the building of this case did not incur expenses for the installation and remodeling of a public sewage treatment facility. Accordingly, the building of this case, which had a capacity sufficient for the changed purpose prior to its incorporation into a public sewage treatment facility, is not subject to the imposition of a sewage treatment facility burden, and thus the disposition of this case is unlawful and revoked.”