2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to the descriptions of Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 3 (including various numbers), Gap evidence 4, Gap evidence 5, Gap evidence 6, Eul evidence 1, and Eul evidence 3.

A. On January 31, 2008, with respect to support for a project to promote public interest activities of non-profit, non-profit, non-profit, non-governmental organizations under Article 7 of the Assistance for Non-Profit, Non-Governmental Organizations Act (hereinafter “public works”), the Defendant specified the “special selection criteria” (hereinafter “special selection criteria”) in the end of the selection criteria, and continuously provided support for a project (hereinafter “Continued support project”) selected as a continuing project (referring to a project promoted by stages over three years, and does not constitute a project carried out repeatedly each year) (hereinafter “Continued support project”) by specifying “the suspension of subsidy” (hereinafter “other matters”) in which the results of each comprehensive evaluation below the average score, the Defendant added the phrase “the suspension of subsidy” (hereinafter “other matters”).

B. The Plaintiff is an incorporated association established for the purpose of developing the policy tasks of female workers and securing the rights and interests of female workers. To receive subsidies from the Defendant, the Plaintiff submitted a business plan to the Defendant to the effect that, by reconcing the life and death of female workers A from May 1, 2008 to December 1, 2010, the business name of the Defendant is "human rights stories of female workers" and the business period is reconcing the life and death of female workers A, thereby forming a social consensus on the reality of female workers. On May 1, 2008, the Defendant continued to select the Plaintiff's business as a non-profit non-governmental organization in 208.

C. On January 30, 2009, the Defendant specified the special selection criteria while publicly announcing the implementation of public works again. On February 17, 2009, the Defendant was notified by the Commissioner General of the National Police Agency that the Plaintiff was a member of the National Countermeasure Council against the opposition to the import of U.S. beef products in relation to the "Conditions for Import Sanitary Requirements for U.S. Beef and Beef Products," which was publicly notified by the Minister for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries on June 26, 2008, of the fact that the Plaintiff was notified that the Plaintiff was a member of the Committee for Countermeasures against the Import of U.S. Beef Products, or an organization participating in the so-called U.S. U.S. U.S. Committee for Countermeasures against U.S. Beef Disease, on or around May 7, 2009, excluded the Plaintiff

2. Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

3. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case by the defendant is unlawful for the following reasons.

(1) The Plaintiff did not participate in an illegal violence assembly or demonstration, and there is no ground for disposition (hereinafter “first argument”).

(2) As long as the Defendant has selected the Plaintiff’s aforementioned business as a continuous support project, it shall continue to provide support until the completion of the project as a continuing project pursuant to the foregoing other matters, etc., and may not suspend subsidies without any grounds (hereinafter “Article 2-1 argument”). Moreover, the instant disposition constitutes the withdrawal of so-called beneficial administrative acts and must have been subject to prior notification or hearing of opinions as prescribed by Articles 21 and 22 of the Administrative Procedures Act, but it did not comply with such legal procedures (hereinafter “2-2 assertion”).

(3) Although there was no person who was punished as a violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act among the Plaintiff’s members, and the Plaintiff did not commit an act that could be held liable for tort, the instant disposition, based on the premise that the Plaintiff is deemed an organization participating in an illegal violence or demonstration according to the special selection criteria, goes against the principle of a democratic state under the Constitution or the principle of a rule of law (hereinafter “third assertion”).

(4) As the Defendant selected the Plaintiff’s continuing business as a support project, the Plaintiff believed it without gross negligence and set the business plan and budget in 2009. The instant disposition goes against the principle of trust protection (hereinafter “fourth assertion”).

(5) The criteria for special selection presented by the Defendant are irrelevant to the administrative action of support for public works under the Assistance for Non-Profit, Non-Profit, Non-Governmental Organizations Act, which is a basis law, and accordingly, excluded the Plaintiff’s above project from the source of subsidy (hereinafter “the fifth argument”).

B. Determination

(1) As to the basic issue

Before examining the legitimacy of each of the above arguments specifically, the basic issues of this case, namely, whether the defendant's disposition of this case already constitutes a partial withdrawal of the act selected as a support project in 2008, or a rejection disposition against the application for selection of support project in 2009, whether the special selection criteria per se are legitimate, and whether the plaintiff constitutes an organization participating in an illegal violence or demonstration under the special selection criteria.

(A) Nature of the instant disposition

1) Article 6(1) of the Assistance for Non-Governmental Organizations Act, which is a legal basis for financial support to non-profit non-profit non-governmental organizations, provides that the Minister of Public Administration and Security or the Mayor/Do governor (hereinafter referred to as the "Minister of Public Administration and Security, etc.") may subsidize expenses for public services for projects other than those that granted subsidies under other Acts to registered non-profit non-governmental organizations. Article 7(1) of the Act provides that the Minister of Public Administration and Security, etc. shall determine the types of public services that can identify the social demand for the support of public services that the registered non-governmental organizations may participate each year. Article 7(2) of the Act provides that the Minister of Public Administration and Security, etc. shall determine individual support projects and subsidies as determined by the Committee for Selection of Public Works within the type of projects under paragraph (1) of the same Article. Article 8 of the Act provides that if a registered non-governmental organization intends to receive subsidies, it shall submit a business report by the end of March of the following fiscal year and submit it to the Minister of Public Administration and Security.

On the other hand, Article 4 (1) of the Act on the Budgeting and Management of Subsidies provides that a person who intends to operate a subsidy program shall apply to the head of the central government agency for the appropriation of subsidies in the budget each year.

In light of the language and purport of the above provisions, subsidies under the Assistance for Non-Profit, Non-Profit, Non-Profit, Non-Governmental Organizations Act are provided individually by the Minister of Public Administration and Security at the request of a non-profit, non-profit, non-profit, etc. on a yearly basis, and the specific project was selected as eligible for subsidies in any fiscal year, and there is no legal basis for continuing

2) In light of these points, the health department, even though the business plan submitted by the Plaintiff to the Defendant specified the project as continuing project and set up detailed project details and budget execution plan to be promoted over the project period of three years each year, and the Defendant also tried to continuously support the continuing project by the end of the project as continuing support project. However, even though the Defendant expressed that it would continuously support the continuing project by the end of the project as continuing support project, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant had selected the source of subsidy for the consecutive project exceeding the amount of 2008 and 2009 and 2010 as an object of subsidies in advance, barring any special circumstance, it is merely limited to the extent that the Defendant expressed the plan or policy to select the source of subsidy in 209 and 2010 (i.e., the Plaintiff’s separate application for subsidy in 209 and 2010). However, even if each application for subsidy was made without the Plaintiff’s separate application, it should be excluded from the comprehensive evaluation criteria in advance due to any other special circumstances, as well as an average subsidy application result presented in advance.

3) Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition of this case is not to withdraw part of the Defendant’s prior decision on the selection of subsidy recipients, but to constitute a rejection disposition against the Plaintiff’s application for the selection of subsidy recipients in 2009.

(B) The Minister of Public Administration and Security, etc. may decide not to grant the application for selection of a support project, if it is necessary for the public interest, as well as where the project that intends to be selected as a support project is a so-called beneficial administrative disposition that gives rights or interests to the other party and belongs to the discretionary act, and thus, is contrary to the restrictions provided by the relevant laws and regulations, and even in the absence of such restrictions (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Nu1698, Mar. 14, 1997; 98Du17593, Feb. 9, 2001).

However, the part regarding participation in an unlawful assembly or demonstration in the special selection criteria at issue in this case is clear in itself constituting criminal offenses, and it is contrary to the general legal sentiment of the people to provide subsidies from organizations participating in such assembly or demonstration with taxes paid by the people, and it is contrary to the legislative intent of the Non-Governmental Organizations Act for the purpose of contributing to the promotion of public interest activities and the development of democratic society by guaranteeing voluntary activities of non-profit private organizations and supporting the growth of sound private organizations. The Special Committee on Budget and Accounts of the National Assembly passed a resolution on December 13, 2008 to restrict subsidies to organizations punished by the violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, etc. by actively participating in an unlawful demonstration in the name of the organization to which they belong.

In full view of all these circumstances, the criteria for special selection prepared by the Defendant on the basis of the selection of the Support Project set by the Assistance Assistance for Non-Profit, Non-Profit, Non-Governmental Organizations Act are based on

(C) Whether it constitutes the criteria for special selection

1) Facts of recognition

The following facts may be found to be either in dispute between the parties or in full purport of evidence Nos. 2, 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, and 9 of the aforementioned evidence.

A) The Government of the Republic of Korea agreed to import U.S. and U.S. beef on January 13, 2006, and agreed to the resumption of import of U.S. beef on April 17, 2008, and then, on May 2, 2008, some press reports and the candlelight demonstration in the Cheongd Copi, etc., which led to relatively wide response to the assertion of opposition to import of U.S. beef, and on May 6, 2008, on May 6, 2008, the Mad Cow Disease National Countermeasure Council organized by an organization of 1,500 organizations, including the Plaintiff, for the purpose of actively promoting the promotion of import suspension by informing the problems of the Hand Cow, Ltd negotiation and the risk of Mad Cow, Ltd. under the lead of the Korea Cheongd Cow, Ltd.

B) From the formation of the Magman National Countermeasures Committee, the candlelight meeting was held every day after sunset at the Cheongsan Scenic, etc., and from May 24, 2008, after the candlelight meeting, it interfered with traffic by illegally occupying the roads, such as Sejong-ro, etc., and causing injury to the police by exercising violence, and at the same time cut off electricity, extinguishing equipment, etc., the police buses, or led the police buses to enter the Cheong River.

C) Since the Plaintiff participated in the Committee on Countermeasures against the Mad Cow Disease on May 2008, the Plaintiff was aware that the previous candlelight assembly was deteriorated as an illegal violence assembly or demonstration after the establishment of the Committee for Countermeasures against the Mad Cow Disease, but actively supported and publicized the action plan regarding the assembly and demonstration of the Committee for Countermeasures against the Mad Cow Disease, and participated in the assembly and demonstration led by the Committee for Countermeasures against the Mad Cow Disease in order to block the above notification by the Minister for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries around June 26, 2008, and committed acts such as occupying roads without permission by leading the series of human belts in front of the storage of U.S. beef stored in Gwangju-do.

(ii)a group;

According to the above facts, the Plaintiff may be deemed an organization that participated in an assembly or demonstration of illegal violence and actively supports its activities by participating in the conference for countermeasures against the people of the U.S. who led or participated in such assembly or demonstration, and also constitutes an organization that participated in an assembly or demonstration of illegal violence as determined by the special selection criteria.

(2) As to each of the above arguments

(A) First of all, the Defendant stated that the organization participating in an illegal violence assembly or demonstration, which was presented at the time of the implementation announcement as seen earlier, is restricted to support. The Plaintiff selected the application for selection of the subsidy source from 2008 to 2010 regarding the above project in 2008 only for the portion of 2008, but rejected the Plaintiff’s application for selection of the subsidy source in 2009, on the ground that the Plaintiff fell under the special criteria for selection. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion and assertion on the different premise and argument cannot be accepted, and the Plaintiff’s right and interest cannot be yet granted to the Plaintiff, who is the other party. Thus, the rejection disposition regarding the application as seen in the instant disposition cannot be deemed as a disposition restricting the rights and interests of the parties under Article 21 or 22 of the Administrative Procedures Act, and thus, it cannot be deemed as subject to prior notice or hearing as provided for in the above disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du368, Dec. 28, 2003).

(B) Next, insofar as the criteria for special selection itself can be justified as seen earlier, the instant disposition that did not select the Plaintiff’s above project meeting the criteria for special selection as a subsidy recipient does not violate the principles of a democratic state or the principles of a rule of law under the Constitution or violates the principles of prohibition of unfair decision-making.

(3) Sub-determination

Therefore, each of the above arguments by the plaintiff is without merit, and the disposition by the defendant of this case is legitimate.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Judges Park Jae-young

Judges Lee Yong-woo

A person shall be appointed.