Open Decision Ledger · Civil obligations & remedies
Water connection charge against a project operator who bore the installation cost
Supreme Court, Sept. 25, 2025, 2024Du58289 (judgment)
Case name: 수도시설분담금부과처분취소
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
May a water connection charge under Article 71 of the Water Works Act be imposed on the project operator under the Urban Housing Environment Improvement Act, who is in principle obliged to bear the cost of installing water facilities within a maintenance district, and does installing those facilities with its own funds count as having paid that charge?
Holding
No, and no. The Water Works Act and the Urban Housing Environment Improvement Act are in a general and special relationship on the new installation and enlargement of water facilities within a maintenance district, so the project operator bears the installation duty and cost unless there are special circumstances. Because the connection charge is imposed on a person who causes the cost to arise but is not the bearer of it, it cannot be charged to that operator, and the operator's own expenditure on installation cannot be treated as payment of a charge that would never be imposed. The claim that the levy decision breached the prohibition on double imposition in Article 5(1) of the Basic Act on the Management of Levies therefore fails at the threshold.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
정비구역 내 수도시설의 비용 부담 주체인 도시정비법상 사업시행자에게는 그 수도시설에 관한 상수도원인자부담금을 부과할 수 없다.
Unofficial English translation
A cause-in-provider charge for water supply facilities cannot be levied on the project operator under the Urban Improvement Act, who bears the costs of the water supply facilities in the improvement zone.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
정비구역 내 수도시설의 설치의무 및 비용 부담 주체는 특별한 사정이 없는 한 도시정비법상 사업시행자로 보아야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
The party obligated to install and bear the costs of water supply facilities in an improvement zone must, absent special circumstances, be regarded as the project operator under the Urban Improvement Act.
Factors
- 일반수도사업에서 급수설비를 제외한 수도시설의 설치의무 및 비용은 원칙적으로 수도사업자가 부담한다고 해석된다
- 수도법과 도시정비법은 정비구역 내 수도시설의 신설·증설 등에 관하여 일반법과 특별법의 관계에 있다고 보아야 한다
- 정비구역 내 수도시설의 신설·증설 등은 대부분 정비사업상 필요에 따라 이루어지는 점 등을 더하여 보면
- 상수도원인자부담금은 수도시설에 관한 비용 부담 주체가 아니면서 그 비용 발생의 원인을 제공한 자에게 부과되므로
Unofficial English translation
• In a general water supply business, the obligation to install and the costs of water supply facilities other than water supply equipment are, in principle, borne by the water supply business operator
• The Water Supply and Waterworks Installation Act and the Urban Improvement Act must be regarded as standing in the relationship of a general act and a special act with respect to the new construction or expansion of water supply facilities in an improvement zone
• considering further the circumstance that the new construction or expansion of water supply facilities in an improvement zone is in most cases carried out as necessitated by the improvement project
• a cause-in-provider charge for water supply facilities is levied on a person who, while not being the party bearing the costs of the water supply facilities, has caused the incurrence of such costs
Relation to precedent
States a new standard Read from the decision
수도법과 도시정비법은 정비구역 내 수도시설의 신설·증설 등에 관하여 일반법과 특별법의 관계에 있다고 보아야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
The Water Supply and Waterworks Installation Act and the Urban Improvement Act must be regarded as standing in the relationship of a general act and a special act with respect to the new construction or expansion of water supply facilities in an improvement zone.
Decisions referred to
해당 본문 참조
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
What special circumstances, if any, would make the water business rather than the project operator the bearer of the installation duty and cost for water facilities within a maintenance district?
A later decision defining the special circumstances left open in this judgment would require this entry to be read again. So would an amendment to Article 2(iv), Article 52(1)(2), Article 92(1) and (2), Article 95(1) and (2) or Article 96 of the Urban Housing Environment Improvement Act, Articles 77 or 79(1) of its Enforcement Decree, or Article 71 of the Water Works Act.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-24
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 6 (relation to precedent).
Axis 6 (Relation to precedent): Primary “States a new standard” vs Independent “Cannot be determined”
The primary reading can treat the statutory synthesis as a new standard, while the independent reading can leave precedent status undetermined because the supplied text does not expressly describe its relationship to earlier decisions.
수도법과 도시정비법은 정비구역 내 수도시설의 신설·증설 등에 관하여 일반법과 특별법의 관계에 있다고 보아야 한다.Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Seoul High Court, in its judgment of 25 September 2024 (2021Nu65417), held that the levy decision was unlawful because it breached the prohibition on double imposition in Article 5(1) of the Basic Act on the Management of Levies. It reasoned that the plaintiff, the operator of a housing environment improvement project, had argued that it installed a distribution pipe within the maintenance district at its own expense, and that by agreement it had paid the connection charge, so the ground for imposing it had been extinguished.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that installing the facility with one's own funds cannot be treated as paying the connection charge, since that charge can never be imposed on the cost bearer in the first place. The court below had therefore misread the law on who bears the installation cost within a maintenance district, on payment by agreement and the resulting extinction of the ground for imposition, and on the prohibition on double imposition, and that error affected the outcome. It reversed the whole judgment and remanded the case to the Seoul High Court, omitting any decision on the remaining grounds of appeal, on the unanimous view of the participating Justices.
Distinguishing conditions
- A water facility other than customer supply equipment in a general water business, where the water business bears the installation duty and cost in principle.
- A person who caused the cost of water works to arise but is not the bearer of that cost, since the connection charge is imposed on such a person.
- Special circumstances under which the project operator is not the bearer of the installation duty and cost within the maintenance district.
Record verification notes
Confirm first that the facility sits within a maintenance district and was newly installed or enlarged for the needs of the renewal project, since that is what makes the Urban Housing Environment Improvement Act the special law. Then identify precisely what was paid and on what basis: a payment by agreement of the charge itself stands differently from spending on installation. Finally, keep the double-imposition argument separate, because it does not arise unless the operator was in fact under a duty to pay.
From the official text
Points at issue
도시 및 주거환경정비법상 정비구역 내 수도시설의 설치의무 및 비용을 부담하는 주체(=도시 및 주거환경정비법상 사업시행자) / 정비구역 내 수도시설의 비용 부담 주체인 도시 및 주거환경정비법상 사업시행자에게 그 수도시설에 관한 상수도원인자부담금을 부과할 수 있는지 여부(소극) 및 사업시행자가 자신의 비용을 지출하여 정비구역 내 수도시설을 설치한 경우, 수도법 제71조에서 규정하고 있는 상수도원인자부담금을 납부한 것으로 볼 수 있는지 여부(소극)
Unofficial English translation
The party obligated to install water supply facilities in an improvement zone under the Act on the Improvement of Urban Areas and Residential Environments and the party bearing the costs thereof (i.e., the project operator under the Act on the Improvement of Urban Areas and Residential Environments) / Whether a cause-in-provider charge for water supply facilities may be levied on the project operator under the Act on the Improvement of Urban Areas and Residential Environments, who bears the costs of the water supply facilities in the improvement zone (negative), and whether, where the project operator has installed water supply facilities in the improvement zone at its own expense, such project operator may be regarded as having paid the cause-in-provider charge for water supply prescribed in Article 71 of the Water Supply and Waterworks Installation Act (negative)
Summary of the holding
수도법 제71조에서 규정하고 있는 상수도원인자부담금은 수도사업자가 수도시설의 비용을 부담하는 주체임을 전제로, 수도공사 비용 발생의 원인을 제공한 자 등에게 그 비용의 전부 또는 일부를 부담하게 하는 것이다. 수도법 제12조 제1항, 제18조 제1항, 제19조 제1항, 제20조, 제21조 제1항, 제43조 제1항, 제60조, 제70조, 제75조를 종합하여 보면, 일반수도사업에서 급수설비를 제외한 수도시설의 설치의무 및 비용은 원칙적으로 수도사업자가 부담한다고 해석된다. 한편 도시 및 주거환경정비법(이하 ‘도시정비법’이라 한다) 제2조 제4호, 제52조 제1항 제2호, 제92조 제1항, 제2항, 제95조 제1항, 제2항, 제96조, 도시 및 주거환경정비법 시행령 제77조, 제79조 제1항에 따르면, 도시정비법상 정비구역 내의 수도시설의 설치의무 및 비용은 원칙적으로 사업시행자가 부담한다고 해석된다. 이와 관련하여 정비구역 내 수도시설의 설치의무 및 비용 부담 주체가 수도법상 수도사업자인지, 아니면 도시정비법상 사업시행자인지 문제 된다. 위 각 법령 규정들의 내용에 정비구역 내 수도시설의 신설·증설 등은 대부분 정비사업상 필요에 따라 이루어지는 점 등을 더하여 보면, 수도법과 도시정비법은 정비구역 내 수도시설의 신설·증설 등에 관하여 일반법과 특별법의 관계에 있다고 보아야 한다. 그렇다면 정비구역 내 수도시설의 설치의무 및 비용 부담 주체는 특별한 사정이 없는 한 도시정비법상 사업시행자로 보아야 한다. 한편 상수도원인자부담금은 수도시설에 관한 비용 부담 주체가 아니면서 그 비용 발생의 원인을 제공한 자에게 부과되므로, 정비구역 내 수도시설의 비용 부담 주체인 도시정비법상 사업시행자에게는 그 수도시설에 관한 상수도원인자부담금을 부과할 수 없다. 따라서 사업시행자가 자신의 비용을 지출하여 정비구역 내 수도시설을 설치하였다고 하더라도, 이를 들어 해당 수도시설에 대하여 부과될 여지가 없는 상수도원인자부담금을 납부하였다고 볼 수도 없다.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Provisions referred to
수도법 제12조 제1항, 제18조 제1항, 제19조 제1항, 제20조, 제21조 제1항, 제43조 제1항, 제60조, 제70조, 제71조, 제75조, 도시 및 주거환경정비법 제2조 제4호, 제52조 제1항 제2호, 제92조, 제95조 제1항, 제2항, 제96조, 도시 및 주거환경정비법 시행령 제77조, 제79조 제1항
Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger