2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 300,000 and the amount of KRW 300,000 as well as the amount of KRW 5% per annum from September 1, 2009 to August 27, 2008 to the service date of a copy of each complaint of this case, and the amount of KRW 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment (the Plaintiff seeks, at his option, payment to the Defendant Simin Agricultural Partnership on the basis of unjust enrichment or tort liability against the Defendant, and the Plaintiff seeks to pay the said amount from the principal and selective liability to the Defendant 2, with joint tort or employer liability, or with the liability of the union members under the Civil Act, and with the ancillary liability of the union members, the Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 42,857,142 as well as damages for delay).

Purport of appeal

In the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against Defendant 3 and the part against Defendant 2 shall be revoked. All of the Plaintiff’s claims against the Defendants are dismissed (the first instance court dismissed all of the primary claims against Defendant 2 and accepted the conjunctive claims against Defendant 2, and only Defendant 2 was dissatisfied with them, which is subject to the judgment of this court).

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the “shot derivative automatic packaging machine” in the fourth 17th 17th th th 17th of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be read as “shot2 automatic packaging machine”; (b) the “Gwanju High Court” in the fifth 1st 5th 1st 1st 2nd 2nd 2nd 3rd 8st 11st 8st 8st 8st 2nd 3b) as “ratio of loss burden”; and (b) the same is the part against the Defendant Minin Agricultural Association, Defendant 3, and the part of the claim for union members’ liability against Defendant 2 under the Civil Act against Defendant 2. Therefore, it shall be cited as is in accordance

2. The modified part;

B. Defendant 3 argues that, among the detailed implementation guidelines for the subsidy program of this case, the building subject to the subsidy granted by a public official belonging to the Plaintiff is not sufficient to recognize that the building is limited to the building designed and constructed by a qualified company under the Construction and Construction Act, and that only Defendant 3 submitted false documents in the process of changing the original project plan into the project plan that installs Class 2 of the high-tech machinery automation equipment, and thus, it should be considered in calculating the amount of compensation for damages. Thus, each statement of No. 1, No. 2, No. 10, No. 11, No. 10, No. 24, No. 27, No. 29, No. 33, No. 34, etc., and each statement of No. 1, No. 2, No. 10, No. 24, No. 29, No. 29, No. 334, etc., even if the administrative guidance against Defendant 3 was not appropriate, it is difficult to conclude that such administrative guidance was not reasonable.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is just and without merit, and all appeals by the defendants are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Choi Pung-ho (Presiding Judge)