logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원통영지원 2019.03.19 2017가단24198
부당이득금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an autonomous deliberative body established pursuant to Article 14 of the Multi-Family Housing Management Act to determine important matters concerning the management of the above apartment on behalf of the occupants, etc. of the apartment A at the macro-si (hereinafter “the instant apartment”).

B. Pursuant to Article 15(2) of the Sewerage Act, the Defendant designated the “B public sewage treatment plant” and “C public sewage treatment plant” adjacent thereto as a treatment-required area (hereinafter “the instant treatment-required area”) and imposed a sewage fee on the residents within the treatment-required area pursuant to Article 65(1) of the Sewerage Act.

C. The instant apartment complex is located within the instant treatment area, and without using a public sewage treatment plant from July 2012 to September 2016, which is the occupancy time, installed the private sewage treatment facility on its own and treated the sewage, and thereafter discharged the sewage as sewage pipes (i.e., using a public sewage treatment plant without using the private sewage treatment facility from October 2016).

From July 2012 to September 2016, the Defendant imposed a total of KRW 34,560,200 as stated in the attached Table 1 of Article 14(2) of the former Ordinance on the Use of Sewerage at macro-si (amended by Ordinance No. 1521, Apr. 24, 2017) on the Plaintiff from July 201 to September 2016, the Defendant collected the amount equivalent to the above amount from the apartment occupants of this case and paid it to the Defendant.

E. On January 30, 2019, the Changwon District Court 2018Guhap52431, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the disposition imposing the above fees for the use of the sewerage against the Plaintiff. However, the said court rendered a judgment of dismissal of claim on January 30, 2019, and the said judgment became final and conclusive as it is.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 3 through 6, and Eul.

arrow