사정재판에 대한 이의의 소
1. The plaintiffs' appeals against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: "the grant of subsidies for 2009 athletic games" in the front part of the "competence jurisdiction" in the 13th sentence of the judgment of the court of the first instance; "the above subsidies" in the front part of the 22th sentence "the event" in the 3th sentence of the 22th sentence; "the above subsidies are composed of 20,000,000 won for defendant military expenses and 30,000,000 won for Chungcheongnam-do Do (hereinafter referred to as "do expenses in this case")" in the front part of the "competence jurisdiction" in the 15th sentence of the judgment of the court of the first instance; "63,200,000" in the 19th sentence as "73,20,000,000"; and the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance and the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be cited in accordance with Article 20 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The defendant with an additional part;
5. Regarding Taean-gun-gun] The part added under Section 22 of the 22th 14th 【The International Fund” refers to “the instant festival” (hereinafter “the instant festival”).
Of the support costs of the Do, 30 million won of the Do subsidy is the amount subsidized from the Cheongnam-do, so it cannot be viewed as the defendant's damage.
It is reasonable to view that the Do subsidy in this case is a final subject of the right to the claim, regardless of its source, as long as the Do subsidy in this case was directly paid by the defendant in accordance with the defendant's decision based on the Taean Military Subsidy Management Ordinance, and that the head of the Gun should conduct the settlement inspection of the subsidy when the subsidy program is completed or approved or the business year ends according to Article 14 (1) of the Taean Military Subsidies Management Ordinance.
As a result, the defendant included the Do expenses of this case on September 2, 2008 and follow-up management, including the settlement inspection of the subsidies provided for the festival of this case.