A. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) filed a lawsuit against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) to confirm that the Plaintiff did not have any obligation to return subsidies to the Defendant under B’s business (hereinafter “instant business”). While the lawsuit is pending, the Defendant filed a counterclaim against the Plaintiff, claiming the return of the subsidies, and received a claim for the return of subsidies from the Plaintiff from an incorporated association C (hereinafter “instant business entity”) as the cause of the claim, and the head of the central government office may order the recipient of subsidies to return the subsidies pursuant to Article 33(1) of the Subsidy Management Act (hereinafter “Subsidy Management Act”). Since the Defendant obtained the delegation of the authority of the head of the central government office, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff was entitled to seek the return of subsidies directly against the Plaintiff as the recipient of the subsidies, the Defendant’s claim for the return of subsidies as the cause of the claim is different from the substantive law, and thus, is objectively incorporated as a separate subject matter of lawsuit.

(b) Article 269(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that the defendant may file a counterclaim with the court in which the principal lawsuit is pending, not later than the closure of pleadings, only in cases where it does not substantially delay litigation procedures.

However, the claim which is the object of the lawsuit shall not be exclusively subject to the jurisdiction of other courts.

(c)

The fact that the head of the central government office has been delegated the right to order the return of the subsidy under Article 33(1) of the Subsidy Act among the grounds for the claim that the Defendant asserts is delegated the right to collect the subsidy that the head of the central government office has.