2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

A. The Plaintiff is an incorporated association that has supported the activities of disabled persons, etc. from around 1991, and received subsidies, etc. from the Korea Health and Welfare Information Development Institute under the name of "income from the activities of disabled persons" after being designated as a "supporting institution for activities of disabled persons" pursuant to Article 20 (2) of the former Act on the Support for Activities of Disabled Persons (amended by Act No. 13664, Dec. 29, 201; hereinafter referred to as the "former Act on Activity of Disabled Persons") and Article 18 (3) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Act on Activity of Disabled Persons (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare No. 471, Dec. 30, 201).

B. According to the results of the inspection of the operational status of support institutions for disabled activities jointly conducted by Incheon Metropolitan City and Gun/Gu (the inspection period from July 22, 2015 to July 22, 2015), the Defendant: (a) disbursed the subsidy that the Plaintiff received from the Korea Health and Welfare Information Development Institute as above for the purpose other than the purpose of life-saving gift as shown in attached Table 1; and (b) disbursed the subsidy for the "C" employee D, E, F and severely disabled vehicles moving support projects, such as attached Table 1 Crime List 2, for the purpose other than the purpose of using the subsidy for the purpose of other than the purpose (hereinafter referred to as the "use of the subsidy, etc. in this case"); (c) on March 29, 2016, the Defendant issued the previous disposition to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 231 of the former Subsidy Management Act (amended by Act No. 13931, Jan. 28, 2015; hereinafter referred to as the "former Act") and Article 32361 of the Social Welfare Services Act (amended by Act).

[Attachment 1] Details of the previous disposition of this case

A person shall be appointed.

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the previous disposition of the instant case and filed a petition for adjudication with the Incheon Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on July 25, 2016.

D. Meanwhile, on June 14, 2016, G, the representative director of the Plaintiff, violated Articles 41 and 22 of the former Subsidy Act due to the act of using the instant subsidies, etc., and filed an application for a formal trial against the summary order of KRW 3 million (Seoul District Court Decision 2016DaMa90000). In the case of Incheon District Court Decision 2016DaMa1826, Sept. 9, 2016, “G received subsidies, etc. from the Korea Health and Welfare Information Development Institute for the disabled under the name of the profit from the activities of the disabled. Of the profit from the activities of the disabled that G received and used, not only the state subsidies provided by the former Subsidy Act but also the local government itself cannot be readily concluded that G used national subsidies as the act of using the instant subsidies, etc. (hereinafter referred to as “the foregoing judgment of innocence”).

Since then, in the case of Incheon District Court 2016No3753, G, the appellate court, Article 41 and Article 22 of the former Subsidy Act of October 12, 2017, also punishs the use of subsidies for non-purpose purposes of the subsidized project operator and the indirectly subsidized project operator. However, G cannot be deemed to be an indirectly subsidized project operator, and only is a subsidy recipient, it cannot be punished by the above provisions, and there is no other provision to punish the use of subsidies for non-purpose purposes of the subsidized project operator (hereinafter referred to as "the judgment of innocence of the second instance").

E. On December 18, 2016, after G was sentenced to acquittal in the first instance trial, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the change to the effect that the previous disposition of this case is mitigated to a total of KRW 2,100,000 and a corrective disposition of KRW 2,10,000 as shown below [Attachment 2] (hereinafter “the changed dispositions”).

[Attachment 2] Details of the Disposition of this case

A person shall be appointed.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 14 (including virtual numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. As the reasoning of the judgment of innocence rendered by the Plaintiff’s representative director G, Article 22 of the former Subsidy Act prohibits the use of subsidies for purposes other than those of the subsidized project operator and indirectly subsidized project operator, and the Plaintiff cannot be deemed as an indirectly subsidized project operator, and the Plaintiff is merely a recipient of subsidies. Therefore, even if the Plaintiff used the subsidies received from the Defendant for purposes other than the original purpose, there is no room for applying Articles 22 and 34 of the former Subsidy Act to the Plaintiff.

B. In addition, as the reasons for the judgment of innocence in the first instance that was rendered with respect to G, the Plaintiff received subsidies from the Korea Health and Welfare Information Development Institute under the pretext of obtaining profit from activities of persons with disabilities, and among the above profit from activities of persons with disabilities that the Plaintiff received and used, not only the State subsidies and local governments provided by the former Subsidy Act, but also the charges for persons with disabilities themselves are mixed. Therefore, it cannot be readily concluded that the Plaintiff was not only the State subsidies but also the local government subsidies were used unlawfully.

C. Furthermore, among the Plaintiff’s act of using the subsidy of this case, the use of the subsidy of this case, such as ① the disbursement of the expenses for a life-saving gift, etc. as shown in the attached Table 1 of Crimes List 1, is used in line with the purpose of the meeting expenses of the board of directors and welfare expenses for executive officers necessary for the maintenance and operation of the office, and ② the use of the subsidy for the four major insurance premiums for B, who is an employee of another facility, such as D, E, F and 'C' as listed in the attached Table 2 of Crimes List 1, which is an employee of the 'C' as an employee of the 'C', as shown in the attached Table 2, shall also be deemed to have any legal defect in the disbursement.

D. Nevertheless, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff’s act of using the instant subsidy constitutes “indirect subsidy program operator’s use for purposes other than its original purpose” and thus, pursuant to Articles 22 and 34 of the former Subsidy Act, the instant disposition has been taken. The instant disposition is unlawful and revoked as it was issued based on the erroneous determination of facts as well as the absence of legal grounds.

3. Relevant statutes;

Attached 2 is as shown in the "relevant Acts and subordinate statutes".

4. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition

A. First, as alleged by the Plaintiff, we examine whether the instant disposition is unlawful as it is a disposition without any legal basis.

(1) Article 22(1) of the former Subsidy Act provides that "a subsidized project operator shall faithfully perform the subsidized project with due care as a good manager in accordance with statutes, the details of the decision to grant subsidies, or the disposition by the head of a central government agency pursuant to the statutes, and shall not use the subsidy for any other purpose." Article 22(2) of the same Act provides that "indirect subsidized project operator shall implement an indirect subsidy project with due care as a good manager in accordance with the purpose of granting indirect subsidies, and shall not use the indirect subsidy for any other purpose." In addition, Article 34(1) of the former Subsidy Act provides that "the former Subsidy Act prohibits an indirect subsidized project operator and indirect subsidized project operator from using the subsidy for any other purpose." Article 34(1) of the same Act provides that "The former Subsidy Act shall establish a separate account for the subsidy or indirect subsidy granted to the subsidized project operator or indirect subsidized project operator and shall clearly separate the revenue and expenditure of the subsidy."

On the other hand, according to Article 2 of the former Subsidy Act, the term "subsidized Project Operator" is a person who carries out administrative affairs or projects eligible for State subsidies, i.e., subsidized projects (paragraphs 1 through 3), and the term "indirect subsidized project operator" is a person who carries out the business affairs or projects eligible for State subsidies, i.e., indirect subsidized projects (paragraphs 4 through 6), and a person who receives subsidies or indirect subsidies from a subsidized project operator or indirect subsidized project operator, without receiving any corresponding consideration, for the purpose of granting the subsidies by any person other than the State as a whole or part of the financial resources (paragraphs 8 and 5). According to each of the above text, since only a person who carries out a subsidized project or indirect subsidized project is a subsidized project operator or indirect subsidized project operator, the person who is not a subsidy project operator or indirect subsidized project operator is not a person who has received the benefits of the subsidy. Therefore, the person is not a subsidy project operator or indirect subsidized project operator.

Furthermore, Article 2 subparag. 1 of the former Subsidy Act provides that "subsidies (limited to subsidies granted to local governments and those granted to facility funds or operation funds of corporations or individuals) and charges (excluding those granted under international treaties) that are granted without receiving corresponding consideration from the State for the purpose of creating or providing financial assistance to affairs or projects conducted by non-State entities." Accordingly, subsidies subject to the above Act are limited to subsidies granted by the State. Accordingly, subsidies granted by local governments are not subject to the former Subsidy Act, and are only subject to the Enforcement Decree of the Local Finance Act and the Local Finance Act and the Ordinance on the Management of Subsidies by the relevant local government (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da2951, Jun. 9, 2011).

In light of the contents of the former Subsidy Act and related legal principles, the fact that the plaintiff received subsidies, etc. from the Korea Health and Welfare Information Development Institute as "income from activities of disabled persons" as designated under Article 20 (2) of the former Subsidy Act is also acknowledged as having included the sum of "subsidies and indirect subsidies (national subsidies) paid by the State at the rate of 70/100 (local basic subsidy rate of 70/10), and "local subsidies paid at the rate of 30/100 from the local government" among the financial resources of the above "income from activities of disabled persons" as mentioned in subparagraph (2) of Article 20 of the former Subsidy Act. Thus, it is not probable that the plaintiff can not be deemed as having received any indirect subsidy from the Korea Health and Welfare Information Development Institute (Article 2 (1) of the former Subsidy Act) which is "the Korea Health and Welfare Information Development Institute," which is "the indirect subsidy from the Korea Health and Welfare Information Development Institute (Article 2 (2) of the former Subsidy Act)" (Article 2 (4) of the former Subsidy Act).

Therefore, even if the Plaintiff used the subsidy or indirect subsidy received from the Korea Health and Welfare Information Development Institute for some purpose other than its original purpose, or did not clearly separate the revenue and expenditure of the subsidy or indirect subsidy from its original purpose and account, Article 22 or 34 of the former Subsidy Act cannot be applied to the Plaintiff, unless it is recognized that the Plaintiff’s status as a “subsidized business operator” or “indirect business operator” can not be applied. Ultimately, each of the above provisions can not be deemed a legal basis for the instant disposition.

(2) If so, in order to clarify whether there are legal grounds for the instant disposition, there are other relevant statutes cited by the Defendant, which do not require the Plaintiff to be a subsidized project operator or an indirectly subsidized project operator, that is, Article 33-2(1) of the former Subsidy Act, Article 32-4(1) of the Local Finance Act, Article 42(2) and (3) of the former Social Welfare Services Act, and Articles 10(1) and 15 of the Financial and Accounting Rules of social welfare corporations and social welfare facilities, only the issue of whether the instant disposition can be taken with the purport of recovering subsidies, etc. from the Plaintiff and issuing corrective orders is possible. The comparison of the contents of each of the above provisions is as follows.

[Attachment 3] The provisions of the applicable law cited by the Defendant

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff received subsidies, etc. from the Korea Health and Welfare Information Development Institute under the name of "income from activities of disabled persons" is added to the purport of the entire arguments as seen earlier. ① Income from activities of disabled persons shall be determined by adding the amount of subsidies received from the disabled persons who applied for activities of disabled persons to the total amount of the subsidies received at the rate of 70/100 (local basic subsidy rate of 70/100) from the State pursuant to attached Table 1] of Article 4(1) [Attachment 1] of the former Enforcement Decree of the Subsidy Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 27113, Apr. 28, 2016) and the local subsidies received at the rate of 30/100 from the local government (at least 95% of the total subsidies), and the amount of subsidies received from the disabled persons who applied for activities of disabled persons cannot be determined to be used as the purpose of Article 28(1) of the former Local Finance Act as well as the amount of subsidies to be used by the State or local subsidies.

(3) Meanwhile, Articles 10(1) and 15 of the Rules on Finance and Accounting of Social Welfare Foundation and Social Welfare Facilities provide that a budget shall be compiled for social welfare foundation and social welfare facility shall not be used for purposes other than those determined by the expenditure budget. However, Article 16 of the above Rules explicitly states that "where a certain procedural requirement is met, such as a resolution by the board of directors or a report by the facility operation council, the representative director of the social welfare foundation or the head of the social welfare facility may divert the budget between the government, paragraphs, and items", and there is no sanctions such as restitution in violation of Article 10(1) or 15 of the above Rules. Thus, it is difficult to deem that the above Article 10(1) or 15 of the above Rules is a punitive administrative disposition (the corrective disposition among the dispositions in this case cannot be the legal basis for the corrective disposition).

B. Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is reasonable, and the instant disposition is a disposition that lacks legal basis, and should be revoked illegally (as long as the Plaintiff’s assertion is accepted, it shall not be determined as to the remainder of the Plaintiff’s assertion).

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Lee Lee-soo

Judges White-dol

2) The above provision is not a ground provision for disposition, such as restitution, etc., which is a "other facility established pursuant to other Acts and subordinate statutes" that the plaintiff paid the 4th insurance premium, etc., since it is not a ground provision for disposition such as restitution, etc., in determining whether there is a legal basis for the disposition of this case, the determination on whether the above provision is a legal ground for disposition is omitted.

3) The above provision is completely identical with Article 32-4 of the Local Finance Act, and thus, in determining whether there are legal grounds for the instant disposition, determination as to whether the above provision is a legal basis for the disposition is also omitted.

4) The Prosecutor’s appeal regarding the instant case is currently pending in the Supreme Court Decision 2017Do17198.

5) Article 2 of the former Subsidy Management Act (amended by Act No. 10898, Jul. 25, 2011) defines the concept of "subsidized Project Operators" and "Indirect Project Operators" and there was no separate provision for "Subsidy Recipients". However, as the above Act was amended on July 25, 201, the definition of "Subsidy Recipients" was added (No. 8) separate from the previous definition provision for "Indirect Project Operators" and "Indirect Project Operators" (No. 25). In the process of the review of the National Assembly, the definition of "Subsidy Recipients" was changed to "Subsidy Recipients" only after the term was maintained as it was, and Article 33-2 was newly established. In light of the legislative process and the contents of the relevant provisions, it is clearly distinguishable from the above provision in the Supreme Court Decision No. 2016Da271675, Feb. 27, 207.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.