기반시설지원금 납입고지 처분취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this case is to be stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the deletion of "Article 11 (3) of the sales contract of this case is irrelevant to the old Ordinance on the Inducement of Investment and the Enforcement Rule thereof" and the addition of the judgment on the plaintiff's assertion, on the grounds that it was not designated as a "domestic company investment promotion district" among the judgment of the court of first instance, the part in general No. 9 through No. 16 of the judgment of the court of first instance, which is the part in general No. 19 of the judgment of the court of first instance (to this extent, the argument by the defendant that the industrial complex of this case is not related to the old Ordinance on the
2. Determination on addition
A. As to the Defendant’s defense prior to the merits, (i) the instant payment notice ordering the return of the instant infrastructure costs falls under “subsidies” under the former Act and the Enforcement Rule thereof or “subsidies” under the Subsidy Management Act or the Local Finance Act; (ii) even if the instant infrastructure costs do not fall under “subsidies” under each of the above Acts and subordinate statutes, the instant payment notice constitutes an administrative disposition applied mutatis mutandis under each of the above Acts and subordinate statutes; and (iii) the instant payment notice constitutes an administrative disposition applied mutatis mutandis under each of the above Acts and subordinate statutes, and (iv) the Plaintiff consented to the Plaintiff’s voluntary disposal of the instant industrial facility site within 10 years, that Article 2(4) of the Enforcement Rule of the former Ordinance on the Promotion of Enterprise Investment and Investment, on the ground that Article 11(3) of the instant sales contract is subject to the Plaintiff’s free will, and thus, did not conclude the instant sales contract.