2...

A. The Plaintiff, a representative director, establishes and operates the “D” in Gangnam-si C, a corporation established for the purpose of carrying out business such as the establishment and operation of living facilities and home welfare facilities for the disabled under the Welfare of the Disabled Act, care facilities for the aged under the Welfare of the Aged Act, establishment and operation of home welfare facilities for the aged, establishment and operation of an institute for caregiver education under the Welfare of the Aged

B. E (F) as the wife of B, which established the Plaintiff, was employed as the head of “D” from January 13, 1998 to June 30, 2014, and the Defendant paid the Plaintiff subsidies in the form of personnel expenses for the head of the facility.

C. However, according to the “Standards for the Maximum of Subsidies for Personnel Expenses for Persons Engaged in Social Welfare Facilities (including the head of a facility)” established and implemented by the Minister of Health and Welfare on January 1, 2002 (hereinafter “the instant standards”), the personnel expenses of the head of a facility shall be paid only until the age of 65; however, with respect to any person who has worked before December 31, 2001 as a transitional measure, the implementation of the standards shall be suspended for ten years (if the head of a facility who has been at the age of 65 falls under the period from January to June 30, 2012 when the grace period is terminated, and if the period falls under the period from July to December 31, 2012). The special provisions stipulate that the upper limit of subsidies shall be the age of 70 years only for the founder and the lineal family members of one household who have been employed as of January 1, 202.

On September 23, 2014, the Defendant determined that the period of subsidization for personnel expenses for E terminated as of December 31, 2012 according to the general transitional measure of the instant standard, and issued the instant disposition to the Plaintiff, stating that based on Article 33-2(1)3, etc. of the Subsidy Management Act, the Defendant returned the total of KRW 84,067,280,00,000, which was paid to the Plaintiff from January 2013 to May 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap 1 to 3, 5, and Eul 2 to 2.