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

The Plaintiff is a social welfare foundation whose main purpose is to establish and operate vocational rehabilitation facilities for disabled persons, and B is a person who serves as a director from December 23, 2012 to December 23, 2015, and is serving as a director again from January 1, 2016 to December 1, 2016.

From February 1, 2013, the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant facilities”) installed “D Employment Rehabilitation Facilities,” which is a social welfare facility of Busan Shipping Daegu C and 1201, and has been managing and operating it as the head of the facility B.

The Plaintiff received subsidies from the Defendant for personnel expenses, personnel expenses, additional operating expenses, etc. for the head of the instant facility. The Defendant, the head of the instant facility, registered his/her business under his/her personal name and operated a restaurant called “F” (hereinafter “instant restaurant”), which is located under the Busan Shipping Daegu E and 110 underground, and issued a request for correction to the Defendant on April 4, 2014 on the ground that one employee of the instant facility and five disabled persons working in the instant restaurant are illegal and unjust.

On April 17, 2014, the Defendant continuously notified the disposition prior to the disposition to B, and issued the disposition prior to May 8, 2014, following the hearing to the Plaintiff and B on May 19, 2014. On May 19, 2014, the Defendant issued the disposition to return subsidies of KRW 58,788,01 (hereinafter referred to as “pre-revision disposition”) in total, KRW 38,050,00 for the cost of the facility site, which was paid from July 19, 2013 to March 2014 for the period of violation, and personnel expenses for employees, KRW 20,218,60 for additional operating expenses, KRW 519,350 for additional operating expenses.

B filed an administrative appeal against the previous disposition on July 22, 2014, but the dismissal ruling was made on July 22, 2014, and the Defendant urged B to implement the previous disposition on August 7, 2014.

However, B filed a lawsuit against the Defendant on September 30, 2014 against this Court 2014Guhap2168, and the Defendant confirmed that he/she was not the operator of the instant facilities, but the Plaintiff during the said lawsuit, and subsequently changed on February 27, 2015.