과원폐원지원금 환수처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. From around 2003, the Plaintiff cultivated a facility distribution map in the area of 5,904 square meters and C 916 square meters (hereinafter “instant orchard”). On February 2006, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for subsidies for discontinuance of business pursuant to Article 6 of the former Special Act on the Assistance to Farmers, Fishermen, etc. following the Conclusion of Free Trade Agreements (amended by Act No. 10890, Jul. 21, 201; hereinafter “former Free Trade Agreement”), and received subsidies for discontinuance of business from the Defendant around October 2008 (hereinafter “instant subsidies for discontinuance of business”).
B. Since November 2012, the Plaintiff cultivated sublime in the instant orchard from November 2012.
C. On October 30, 2013, the Defendant issued a notice of the decision to recover and return the instant subsidy for discontinuance of business (hereinafter “instant disposition”) pursuant to Articles 9 and 21 of the Special Act on Assistance to Farmers, Fishermen, etc. following the Conclusion of Free Trade Agreements (hereinafter “Free Trade Agreements”) on the ground that the Plaintiff cultivated the subject matter for discontinuance of business within five years after receiving the subsidy for discontinuance of business (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
[Ground of recognition] The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1, 2, 6, 9, Eul's 3 and 4 (including the number of pages), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) In an appeal litigation, as a matter of principle, the determination of whether the disposition is unlawful should be made on the basis of the law at the time of the disposition. The Plaintiff’s “Public Notice on Direct Payment Compensation for Income and Items Eligible for Support for Discontinuance of Business” (No. 2004-29 of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, May 24, 2004; hereinafter “previous Public Notice”), which was in force at the time of the Plaintiff’s implementation of the instant closure of business, was an item eligible for support for discontinuance of business and sublime, but was in force at the time of the instant disposition.