[2] The case holding that even if the Korea Federation of Trade Union did not receive money from the contractor in the process of applying for a subsidy while it did not make a report on it in the process of applying for a subsidy, and received the subsidy without making efforts to reduce the construction cost equivalent to the development fund at the time of concluding a construction contract, it does not constitute "when it received the subsidy in an unlawful manner" under Article 30 of the same Act

[2] The case holding that even if the Korea Federation of Trade Unions did not receive money from the contractor in the process of applying for a subsidy while it did not make a report on it in the process of applying for a subsidy, and received the subsidy without making efforts to reduce the construction cost equivalent to the development fund at the time of concluding a construction contract, it does not constitute "when it received the subsidy in an unlawful manner" under Article 30 of the same Act

Article 30(1) of the Act on the Budgeting and Management of Subsidies (hereinafter “Act”) provides that “The head of a central government agency may cancel all or part of the decision to grant a subsidy when a subsidy program operator has received a subsidy by false application or by other unlawful means.” Here, “when the subsidy has been granted by improper means” refers to the receipt of a subsidy in excess of the amount to be granted for affairs or projects not subject to the grant of a subsidy or for which the subsidy has to be granted to the relevant project, etc., and even if the means that may be deemed to lack somewhat legitimate justification in the receipt of the subsidy have been used, it does not constitute the case where the subsidy has been granted with due amount for projects, etc. eligible to receive the subsidy (see Supreme Court Decisions 2005Do573, Mar. 25, 2005; 2006Do906, Nov. 23, 2006, etc.).

After compiling the adopted evidence, the court below determined that the Plaintiff’s receipt of the subsidy constitutes a case where the Plaintiff received a reasonable amount of the subsidy in light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff failed to report the details related to the development fund when it applied for the subsidy to the Defendant; (b) failed to make efforts to reduce the construction cost at the time of conclusion of the construction contract with the Defendant; (c) failed to make efforts to reduce the amount of the subsidy; or (d) determined the amount by the bid price within the scope of the subsidy; (d) received the entire development fund received from the contractor as the Plaintiff’s corporate account; (e) did not specify that the Defendant did not receive the subsidy in relation to the construction of the welfare center project, which is a subsidized project, in granting the subsidy; and (e) there is no special defect after the completion of the project as scheduled; or (e) did not make efforts to grant the subsidy to the Plaintiff in relation to the project, which is eligible to receive the subsidy; or (e) did not receive the subsidy from the above company, even if it received the subsidy from the above company.

In light of the above legal principles and the records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and it cannot be said that there were errors in the misapprehension of legal principles or the application of judicial precedents with regard to improper means as prescribed by the law.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-dam (Presiding Justice)