전별금지급
1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).
purport, purport, and.
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the following is added to the judgment of the court of first instance or where the plaintiff’s assertion is added to the judgment of the court of first instance, thereby citing it pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the
The following shall be added to the 10th page 7 of the judgment of the first instance.
In addition, according to the evidence Nos. 3-5 and 5, the fiscal year of the Defendant Branch’s fiscal year is from January 1 to December of each year, and the fact that the Plaintiff’s withdrawal of the instant reserve was not organized on the items of expenditure of the budget for the fiscal year 2015, which is the fiscal year as of January 20, 2015. According to this fact, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff’s withdrawal of the reserve is an execution item of the budget approved as an item of expenditure. Furthermore, “operating expenses” as an item of expenditure is an execution act itself by consuming the funds organized as above items of expenditure, but it is reasonable to deem that the amount of “reserve expenses” is an execution act itself by transferring money to the account separately prepared in the revenue budget, and it is necessary to separate procedures from the execution of the budget approved. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s withdrawal of the said accumulated funds and the amount of unjust enrichment cannot be deemed to have been paid to the head of the delegated division.
However, even if the Defendant has been preparing the instant reserve in preparation for the plenary system, the payment procedure, timing, and requirements have not been determined, and thus, the Defendant naturally withdrawn the said reserve and paid it to the Plaintiff.