재정결함보조금등반환지시처분취소
1. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;
A. The reasons why this Court has stated are as follows.
In addition to the part to be determined additionally in the first instance judgment, it is identical to the entry of the reasons for the judgment (as to the plaintiffs), and thus, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act
B. As to the preliminary determination on whether the request for the refund of the school operation support fund is illegal among the grounds of the judgment of the first instance court, even if the appointment of each school principal is invalidated, the Plaintiff’s school foundation is obligated to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the value of the labor provided as above to Plaintiff D, etc., and therefore, it is reasonable that Plaintiff D, etc. received the school operation support fund, and thus, Defendant’s request for the refund of the school operation support fund is unlawful.
The Defendant’s request for the refund of the school operation support fund is a measure of restitution to the effect that Plaintiff D et al. unfairly received school operation support funds on the premise that Plaintiff D et al. falls under the Plaintiff’s school foundation’s teacher. Thus, it is difficult to view that Plaintiff D et al.’s request for the refund to affect the legitimacy of the above return on the ground that it is merely an internal issue between Plaintiff D et al. and the pertinent school foundation.
Therefore, the above argument by the plaintiff D is without merit.
D. The Plaintiff’s school foundation received financial defective subsidies for the purpose of paying them to Plaintiff D, etc., who is the principal without knowing that the appointment of the principal of the Plaintiff D, etc. is null and void, and thus, the said subsidies were paid to the said Plaintiffs. Therefore, the said subsidies were false in the report of “where they were used for any purpose other than the purpose of granting” under Article 5 of the Gyeonggi-do Ordinance