2013Guhap1415 Other revocation of revocation of the imposition of charges

Korea Water Resources Corporation

Daejeon Daejeon Woo-dong, Daejeon 6-2

A high-tech enterprise 1,00,000

Representative;

Law Firm Doz.

Attorney Lee In-bok

Gu US Market

Law Firm Doz.

Attorney Lee In-bok

Litigation Performers;

August 13, 2014

September 19, 2014

1. On August 26, 2013, the Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 11,456,200 against the Plaintiff is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The order is as set forth in the text.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff is a project implementer of the project for the development of the fourth industrial complex (hereinafter referred to as the "industrial complex of this case") in the old U.S. (hereinafter referred to as the "project of this case") and under Article 28 of the Industrial Sites and Development Act, and Article 26 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the plaintiff received a total of KRW 38,471,000,000 per day from 1998 to 207, the maximum facility capacity of 50,000 meters per day during the project period of 1998 ( = 15,000/day + 35,000 factory wastewater + 35,000 cubic meters / day), 34,653 employees, 620, 626, 216, 297, 2002, and 28,000,000 after completion inspection on the construction of the industrial complex of this case (the industrial complex of this case).

B. On May 8, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a report on the installation and the commencement of use of a drainage system with the discharge quantity on April 30, 2013, and July 28, 2013, the date of commencement for the completion of the completion of the construction project, in order to construct the apartment site (hereinafter referred to as the “building in this case”) of the Gumi-si Construction Complex on April 30, 2013 on the part of the Gumi-dong 940 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”).

C. Accordingly, on August 26, 2013, the Defendant imposed (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”) a sewerage burden of KRW 11,456,200 on the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 61 of the Sewerage Act, Article 35 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Articles 21 through 24 of the former Si/Gu Ordinance on the Use of Sewerage (hereinafter referred to as the “Ordinance”) on the ground that the amount of wastewater generated has increased due to the construction of the instant building on August 26, 2013 by 72m of wastewater generation as follows:

【Uncontentious facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including each number), and the court’s inquiry into the Minister of Environment, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1)

According to Article 61(2) of the Sewerage Act and Article 35(2)2 (b) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 21(2) of the Ordinance of this case, other actors shall directly perform the public sewerage construction works required due to the burden of sewage on the entire site for the project accompanying other acts or other acts. However, upon completion of the construction of the instant sewage treatment plant, the Plaintiff implemented the "necessary construction works" under the latter part of Article 61(2) of the Sewerage Act, and this constitutes "where a public sewage treatment plant has been installed in a public sewage treatment plant capable of properly treating sewage generated from other acts by a causing person" under Article 21(2) of the Ordinance of this case. Accordingly, the Defendant cannot additionally impose the burden of sewage on the Plaintiff, who is the owner of the instant building, who is another person executing the instant industrial complex development project and the owner of the instant building.

Nevertheless, the defendant made the disposition of this case on the ground that the plaintiff had installed the above sewage treatment plant with the government subsidy, which is illegal as there is no legal basis, and it is illegal to deviate from and abuse discretion against the purpose of the government subsidy to permit the sale of the sewage treatment plant through the government subsidy even if not, it is illegal.

2) According to Article 61(1) and (2) of the Sewerage Act, the Defendant has discretion to impose an amount borne by the burden of sewage on other actors and the owner of the building. Furthermore, according to Article 63 of the Sewerage Act, Articles 28 and 45(2) of the Industrial Sites Act, etc., where the Plaintiff installed a sewage treatment plant through a government subsidy, not its own expenses, it cannot be deemed that other actors installed a public sewage treatment plant. Thus, it does not constitute cases where necessary construction prescribed in Article 61(2) of the Sewerage Act, or where the owner of the building prescribed in Article 21(2) of the Ordinance does not impose an amount borne by the burden on the Plaintiff, who is the owner of the building of this case. Accordingly, the Defendant may impose an amount borne by the burden of sewage

B) Even if it is not so, if the instant building exceeds the scheduled scope of the project in this case, the owner may be charged with the burden. If the Plaintiff constructed the instant building to discharge sewage exceeding the planned scope due to the construction of the instant building, etc., the Plaintiff should bear the burden of borne by the sewerage for the excessive portion.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related Acts and subordinate statutes.

C. Determination

1) Article 61(1) of the Sewerage Act provides that a public sewerage management authority shall establish, extend, or alter a new building, etc. to increase sewage in at least the amount prescribed by Presidential Decree.

Article 61(2) provides that the owner (referring to the owner or the construction owner in cases of construction or construction) may bear the whole or part of the cost of rebuilding the public sewerage system, and Article 61(2) provides that the public sewerage management authority may bear all or part of the cost of construction for the public sewerage system which has been incurred due to other construction works prescribed by Presidential Decree or development activities accompanied by new construction or extension of the public sewerage system (hereinafter referred to as "other acts") or have the person who is obliged to bear the cost of construction works or other acts perform the necessary construction works.

Ultimately, the Sewerage Act provides that the burden-bearing amount may be imposed on the provider who caused the construction work of the public sewerage or caused the construction work of the public sewerage as a result, in addition to the construction work for installation and management of the public sewerage itself. Article 61(1) provides that the burden-bearing amount shall be imposed on the owner of the building, etc., and Article 61(2) provides that the person who caused the construction work or other act shall be imposed on the owner of the building, and there is no explicit provision on the burden-bearing amount where the building is newly constructed on the site created by the project implementer, such as the development project, etc., and there is no express provision on the burden-bearing amount shall be first borne by the implementer of the development project and the owner of the building. However, the burden-bearing amount is the primary purpose of imposing on the person who caused the new construction and extension of the public sewerage, and the meaning of the act itself means the act of making the public sewerage construction necessary, barring any special circumstance, the actual person who caused the expansion of the public sewerage cannot be deemed the owner of the building by selling the site within the development project (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Du64.

In light of the above facts and relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the development activities involving the establishment, expansion, etc. of public sewerage as one of the "other construction works prescribed by Presidential Decree" under Article 35 (2) 2 (b) of the Enforcement Decree of the Sewerage Act or "development activities involving the establishment, expansion, etc. of public sewerage" under Article 61 (2) 2 (b) of the Enforcement Decree of the Sewerage Act are an act of creating an industrial complex (an industrial complex development project, etc. under the Industrial Sites Act and the Industrial Cluster Development and Factory Establishment Act, etc.). Accordingly, according to the above facts and relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the project of this case, which is an industrial complex development project, falls under another act under Article 61 (2) of the Sewerage Act and Article 35 (2) 2 (b) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the Plaintiff, who is the project operator of

Therefore, the defendant's assertion that the plaintiff should bear the burden of sewage burden under Article 61 of the Sewerage Act as the owner of the building of this case is without merit.

B) As to this, the Defendant asserts that, since the Plaintiff, a project implementer, installed the instant sewage treatment plant with the government subsidy, it cannot be deemed that the other implementer installed the public sewage treatment plant, and thus, the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant building, can impose an amount borne by the burden of sewage burden.

According to the above facts and the above evidence, the purpose of this case is to impose the cost on the person causing environmental pollution who caused new construction and extension of the public sewerage. The Plaintiff, which is the project operator, established the sewage treatment plant of this case by predicting the generation or increase of sewage. ② Article 21(2) of the Ordinance provides that if the causing person installs the public sewage treatment plant, it does not impose the burden on the public sewage treatment plant. ③ The purpose of the government subsidy for the sewage treatment plant of this case is to properly treat sewage and foul waste in the area where sewage generation area, thereby contributing to the improvement of public health and to preserve the quality of public waters, and at the same time, to reduce the sale of the industrial complex of this case. ④ The Defendant’s imposition of the burden on the Plaintiff, despite the Plaintiff’s installation of the public sewage treatment plant, is not only double burden on the project operator, but also is also contrary to the purpose of the Act on the Construction of Sewage of this case’s government subsidy of this case’s 20th industrial complex.

The sub-paragraph (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2007Du6342 decided Mar. 20, 2008) includes the volume of the sub-paragraph (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2007Du6342 decided Mar. 20,

The plaintiff completed the construction of the industrial complex of this case, such as the construction of the sewage treatment plant of this case with the maximum capacity of 50,000m per day during the project period from 1998 to 2007 ( = 15,000/day + the factory wastewater of 35,000 cubic meters/day), the planned treatment population of 34,653, 44, 620, the planned treatment population of 34,653, the employees of 44,620, the planned treatment area of 6,216, 970, the total project area of 52,384 million won, etc.

8. The Plaintiff received a completion inspection on May 8, 2013. On April 30, 2013, in order to construct the instant building on the instant land, the Plaintiff reported the completion date to the Defendant on April 28, 2013; July 28, 2013; the discharge quantity of 13.72m/ daily discharge quantity; the use of the portion generating daily sewage among the instant company houses is 764.67m in office; 76m in physical power refining stations; and 37m in incidental meal facilities, as seen earlier.

According to the above facts, the Plaintiff established a sewage terminal treatment plant in consideration of the total volume of sewage generated within the industrial complex of this case, including the land in this case, and included resident population and employees in calculating the planned sewage volume. The sewage terminal treatment plant installed by the Plaintiff, such as exceeding the planned sewage volume, appears to fully reflect the actual amount of sewage generation. The construction of the building in this case does not constitute a special circumstance, such as where the Plaintiff originally constructed the building in this case beyond the scheduled scope.

Therefore, in the position of the owner of the building of this case, the plaintiff does not bear the burden of sewage burden separately. Thus, the defendant's disposition of this case imposing the cost of sewage cost on the plaintiff on the ground of the new construction of the building of this case is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition.

Judges in order of the presiding judge

Judges Doese defect

Judges Kim fixed-term

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.