보조금 교부결정 취소처분등 취소 청구의 소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. Gyeonggi-do shall Gyeonggi-do Ordinance on Support for Improvement of Private Sewage Treatment Facilities and Entrusted Management Expenses for the effective management of water sources and rivers (hereinafter referred to as the “Ordinance of this case”).
A) The enactment of the Act requires the owner or manager of a personal sewage treatment facility with a daily treatment capacity of less than 50 cubic meters (hereinafter referred to as “manager, etc.”) to provide subsidies to cover expenses incurred in improving the facilities of the personal sewage treatment facility or the management of the personal sewage treatment facility to a person who operates the business specializing in the management of the private sewage treatment facility (hereinafter referred to as “environmental public project”).
B. The Plaintiff, a corporation established for the purpose of the management business of private sewage treatment facilities, etc. in 2006, applied for subsidies, such as entrusted management expenses, to the Defendant pursuant to Article 4 of the Enforcement Rule of the instant Ordinance, upon delegation by the Plaintiff, while managing the sewage treatment facilities of 79 business establishments, including the manager of private sewage treatment facilities, according to the implementation
The Defendant paid a total of KRW 324,797,50 (hereinafter “instant subsidy”) to the Plaintiff from March 27, 2013 to December 7, 2015 in accordance with the instant Ordinance and the Enforcement Rule.
C. Meanwhile, according to Article 6(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the instant Ordinance, an entrusted management entity that received a subsidy, etc. pursuant to the instant Ordinance is obligated to regularly measure the water quality of the buildings being entrusted and record the results thereof and keep them for three years.
However, the Plaintiff’s actual operator B obtained a false statement of water quality inspection from a measuring agent without conducting a water quality test for the personal sewage treatment facilities managed by the Plaintiff and received the instant subsidy from the Defendant, and the Defendant received the instant subsidy through a normal measurement of water quality, over 2,675 times in total.