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

A. On February 7, 2014, the Plaintiff was selected as a subsidized project operator of “B” (hereinafter “the subsidized project of this case”) and received a subsidy of KRW 300 million from the Defendant (including KRW 15 million for the purchase of oriental medicine).

B. After implementing the instant subsidized project from March 5, 2014 to November 1, 2014, the Plaintiff submitted a performance report and a settlement report to the Defendant on February 11, 2015. Of the subsidies of KRW 300 million, the unpaid balance of the subsidies shall be deemed KRW 60,720, and the unpaid balance of the subsidies shall be deemed KRW 15 million shall be deemed to have been paid in full on February 18, 2014 and the settlement thereof is completed.

C. After that, upon receiving the Plaintiff’s suspicion of unfair use of subsidies through the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission, the Defendant conducted a precise inspection of the instant subsidized project on June 7, 2016, and on September 9, 2016, notified the Plaintiff of the result of the precise inspection that the Plaintiff’s use of the instant subsidized project during the period of the event of the instant subsidized project (hereinafter “instant event”) was KRW 1,390 for C products prescribed by 307 foreign tourists, and the total price is KRW 59,606 even if the upper limit of the product price publicly notified by the Ministry of Health and Welfare is applied.

D. Accordingly, on September 19, 2016, D, the representative at the time of the Plaintiff, filed an objection against the notification of the results of the above precise audit. However, on September 30, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the revocation of the said decision on granting subsidies of KRW 14,40,394 ( KRW 15 million - 559,606) out of the decision on granting subsidies of KRW 300 million based on Articles 22 and 30(1)1 of the Subsidy Management Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Subsidy Management Act”).

E. On October 24, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the instant disposition. However, on December 1, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the result of the review that the Plaintiff would not accept the objection, and notified the Plaintiff of the order to return KRW 16,606,453 (the revoked amount of the decision to grant + KRW 14,440,394 + interest KRW 2,166,059) pursuant to Article 31(1) of the Subsidy Management Act.

F. On December 15, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the result of the foregoing review on the objection and the notification of the return order. However, on February 1, 2017, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the result of the review that the objection should not be accepted.

G. Meanwhile, D received a summary order of KRW 3 million on the ground of the fact that a subsidy of KRW 15 million was used for another purpose, which was granted for the purpose of the purchase cost of oriental medicine.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 11 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Defendant calculated the purchase cost of the oriental medicine used by the Plaintiff during the event period of this case as KRW 559,606 on the basis of the data written by E. However, there exists any portion that was not recorded in the medical record at the time, and as for the oriental medicine prescribed by the customer or group tourists, given that the amount of the relevant data was omitted in the medical record, it should be deemed that the subsidies used by the Plaintiff for other purposes, as the result of accurate and objective investigation of the Plaintiff’s representative D as the result of the summary order on the Plaintiff’s representative D, is only KRW 4,045,90. Therefore, the part exceeding KRW 4,045,90 among the instant disposition should be revoked as it is unlawful

B. Relevant legislation

Attached Form 1 shall be as listed in attached Table 1.

C. Determination

1) According to Articles 22(1), 27(1) and (2), 34(1) and 36(1) of the Subsidy Management Act, a subsidized project operator shall not use subsidies for any other purpose, and shall submit a performance report clearly stating the expenses incurred in the subsidized project for each financial source after completing the subsidized project. A separate account shall be established for the subsidized project and an account shall be clearly divided into revenue and expenditure. In addition, pursuant to Articles 30(1) and 31(1) of the Subsidy Management Act, where a subsidized project operator uses subsidies for any other purpose, the head of a central government agency may cancel all or part of the decision to grant subsidies, and if the decision to grant subsidies is revoked, order the refund of subsidies already granted to the revoked part along with interest. In light of the content and purport of the relevant Act and its purport, and the degree of difficulty to prove, it is reasonable to deem that the subsidized project operator has the responsibility to prove the specific use of the subsidies.

2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the portion exceeding KRW 4,045,90 out of the subsidies granted by the Plaintiff for the purchase cost of Hanba medicine is actually used for the purchase cost of Hanba medicine, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion is rejected.

A) The nationality, name, prescription date, and summary content of a patient recorded in a medical record arranged by E (D's son, the representative of the plaintiff) during the instant event period are 307 cases as shown in attached Table 2, and the amount calculated by applying the upper limit publicly notified by the Ministry of Health and Welfare to the drug used therein by the Ministry of Health and Welfare is not more than 59,606 won in total. As to this, the Plaintiff asserted that there was any part not recorded in the medical record at the time of E, but it seems consistent with the foregoing, it is difficult to believe that the evidence No. 7-2 (written confirmation) of the evidence No. 7 is insufficient in light of the relationship between E and D, the originator, and there is no evidence supporting the contents of the report.

B) The Plaintiff asserts that a large quantity of drugs prescribed for pay customers or group tourists are omitted in the medical records. However, it is not sufficient to recognize only the descriptions or images of the evidence No. 7-1, No. 4, No. 8-2, and it is difficult to believe that the Plaintiff did not keep specific contents of prescription (No. 5-2, No. 3) in consideration of the fact that the above oriental medicine appears to be usable only when an oriental medical doctor prescribed.

C) D appears to have brought about and used some of the drugs necessary for the instant event in common storage whenever necessary, while jointly using the warehouse of F Council members and H Council members operated by G, her husband. However, there is no specific details on the Hanba medicine released for the instant event.

D) The Plaintiff is also a person who has not used 4,045,900 won out of the subsidy of KRW 15 million for the purchase cost of Hanba medicine (the Plaintiff is a person who has been supplied with 5,399,800 won, 1,754,300 won, and 3,800,000 won from Hanbababababababa, which was paid by the Plaintiff for the purchase cost of Hanbabababababababababa, which was paid by the Plaintiff’s representative, for the purpose of using the said subsidy of KRW 4,045,90,000 for any other purpose (the Plaintiff was finally determined by a summary order of KRW 3,00,000,000 for a fine of KRW 4,045,90 for any crime that was used for the other purpose).

E) However, according to the evidence evidence Nos. 12 (Investigation Report), it seems that: (a) the 10,954,100 won exceeding the above 4,045,90 won out of the 15,000 won of the subsidy was actually used for the purchase of oriental medicine; (b) rather, (c) it seems that it was merely a crime committed only for the portion of the amount of accurate use cannot be specified; and (d) it was merely a part of the amount of accurate use to which D is a person.

It is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff actually used 10,945,100 won for the purchase of oriental medicine only with the results of the above investigation process and the summary order.

F) At the time of the initial settlement, D asserts that all of the Hanba medicine equivalent to KRW 15 million was purchased from the HH operated by G, the husband, and that each purchase-related transaction statement (Evidence No. 15) was submitted under the name of GG, but the objection was filed, 2,169,250 won was used for the purpose other than the original purpose and used 12,830,750 won (the amount used + KRW 6,069,600 + KRW 6,761,150) for the purchase of Hanba medicine, and it is difficult to believe that there was no consistency in the statement at the time of the first prosecutor’s investigation, including the statement that the two times prosecutor’s investigation had used KRW 4,471,60, and KRW 4,045,90 at the time of the second prosecutor’s investigation.

G) On the other hand, it is insufficient to recognize that the entries or videos of the evidence Nos. 6-1 through 4, 6, 9, 10, 11, 7-1, 2, 3, 4, 9-9-1, 2, 3, and 17 of the evidence Nos. 6-1 through 4, 6, 9, 10, 11, 7-1, 7-2, 1, 2, 3, and 17 were purchased and disposed of by the Plaintiff at the instant event.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Lee Young-soo

Judges Kim Gin-han