1. As to the ground of appeal on the ground of appeal on the main safety defense

On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s right to be preserved and the need to preserve is not recognized. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the right to be preserved by the obligee’s subrogation right, the right to be preserved by the obligee’s subrogation right

2. As to the grounds of appeal on the scope of application of Article 35 of the former Act on the Budgeting and Management of Subsidies (amended by Act No. 10898, Jul. 25, 201; hereinafter “former Subsidy Act”).

A. Article 35 of the former Subsidy Act provides, “The owner of a subsidized project shall not use, transfer, exchange, or lend, or provide as security, important property acquired with a subsidy or the utility of which increased, for any purpose that violates the purpose of the grant of the subsidy, even after the completion of the subsidy program in question, without the approval of the head of the central government agency.”

Meanwhile, Article 35 of the former Subsidy Management Act (amended by Act No. 10898, Jul. 25, 2011; amended by Act No. 13931, Jan. 28, 2016; hereinafter “Subsidy Act”) provides that “A subsidy program operator or indirect subsidy program operator shall clarify the present value and increase in material property prescribed by Presidential Decree (hereinafter “material property”) acquired with a subsidy or indirect subsidy or the utility thereof increased, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, and shall report the present status thereof to the head of a central government agency or the head of the relevant local government,” and Paragraph (3) of the same Article provides that “A subsidy program operator or indirect subsidy program operator shall not, without approval from the head of the relevant central government agency, engage in any of the following acts with respect to material property even after the completion of the relevant subsidy program:

B. In full view of the nature of Article 35 of the former Subsidy Act, the regulatory structure and method of the former Subsidy Act and the legislative intent of Article 35 of the former Subsidy Act regarding “indirect subsidy and indirect subsidy program operators” and “indirect subsidy and indirect subsidy program operators, etc., it shall be deemed that Article 35 of the former Subsidy Act does not apply to indirect subsidy program operators and indirect subsidy program operators (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Da247257, Nov. 15, 2018).

C. Nevertheless, on the erroneous premise that Article 35 of the former Subsidy Act applies to an indirect subsidy program operator, the instant corporation used indirect subsidy granted by the indirect subsidy program operator as construction cost, and newly constructed the instant building without approval from the Minister of the Korea Forest Service, which is the head of the central government agency, and offered it as security to the Defendant without approval, is null and void as an act violating Article 35 of the former Subsidy Act, and the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage that was completed in the Defendant’s future pursuant to an invalid mortgage contract should also be cancelled as a cause invalidation. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the scope of application

3. Conclusion

The lower judgment is reversed without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jo Hee-de (Presiding Justice)