상수도원인자부담금 부과대상 규정의 해석과 법적 쟁점 ― 대법원 2024. 7. 25. 선고 2022두48837 판결 ―

The Supreme Court addressed the interpretation of subjects liable for Charges Imposed on Causers of Water Supply Facility Expenses (hereinafter “the Charges”) under Article 71(1) of the Water Supply and Waterworks Installation Act, Article 65(1) and (6) of its Enforcement Decree, and the Gangneung City Municipal Ordinance on Calculation and Collection of the Charges. The Court adopted a broad interpretation, holding that the Charges may be imposed on water users to prepare for future demand, even when immediate construction or expansion of water facilities is not required. This interpretation is appropriate when considering the Principle of Interpretation of Administrative Provisions. As the relevant wording is not clear in its meaning, it allows for systematic and logical interpretation. In light of the principle of causer responsibility and the purpose of the Charges system under the Water Supply Act, the wording should be interpreted to include not only cases where immediate construction or expansion of water facilities is required, but also potential causes that directly necessitate future expansion of water facilities. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court did not clarify its position on the phrase “by causing water demand exceeding the water service provider's supply capacity” in Article 4(1)(1) of the Gangneung City Municipal Ordinance. However, this wording also creates ambiguity in the overall context and requires interpretation. It should not be viewed as limiting the scope of subjects liable for the Charges, but rather as illustrating one form of causing such expenses. The legality of Article 4(1)(1) of the Gangneung City Municipal Ordinance, which served as the direct basis for imposing the Charges, also needs to be examined. First, the basis for delegation of this provision is an issue in terms of the Principle of Statutory Reservation. The “detailed standards” in Article 65(6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Water Supply Act should be viewed as a comprehensive delegation clause allowing municipal ordinances to determine the overall system for imposing the Charges, including subjects and requirements, not just the calculation method. Next, the review of potential violations of the Principle of Statutory Superiority assumes that the phrase “by causing water demand exceeding the water service provider's supply capacity” in Article 4(1)(1) of the Gangneung City Municipal Ordinance is interpreted as limiting the scope of subjects liable for the Charges. Considering the enactment process of the Municipal Ordinance, the legislative purpose of the Water Supply Act, and issues of equality and protection of trust among water users, there is a high possibility of violation. Therefore, this wording needs comprehensive revision. Additionally, Article 71(1) of the Water Supply Act, Article 65(1) of its Enforcement Decree, and Article 4(1)(1) of the Gangneung City Municipal Ordinance, which stipulate “person who causes expenses,” as well as the delegation clause in Article 65(6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Water Supply Act, should be amended to clarify their content, thereby enhancing legal stability and predictability for water service providers and users.