2. On January 5, 2016, the head of the Hongsung-gun Agricultural Technology Center shall revoke the decision on the refund of subsidies granted to the agricultural partnership corporation of the Plaintiff Hong-gun Agricultural Technology Center.

3. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant Hong-gun of the Hongsung-gun Federation of Life Improvement and Hong-gun is dismissed.

4. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the plaintiffs' living improvement and red-gun federation, plaintiffs 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 and the defendants shall be borne by the above plaintiffs, while the part arising between the plaintiff's living improvement and the incorporated agricultural association of Hongsung-gun and the director of the defendant Hongsung-gun Agricultural Technology Center and the director of the defendant Hongsung-gun Agricultural Technology Center shall be borne by the head of Hongsung-gun Agricultural Technology Center, the incorporated agricultural association of the plaintiff's living improvement and the defendant Hong-Gun, respectively.

A. Status of the parties

1) The Plaintiff’s Federation of Hongsung-gun (hereinafter “Plaintiff Incorporated”) is an incorporated farming association established for collaborative agricultural management and living improvement projects to improve productivity. The Plaintiff’s Federation of Hongsung-gun (hereinafter “Plaintiff Federation”) is an organization established to develop the rural community of Hongsung-gun, improve the status of rural women and their rights and interests.

2) Plaintiffs 3, 4, 5, and 6 are directors of the Plaintiff’s legal entity, and Plaintiffs 7 are auditors of the Plaintiff’s legal entity.

3) Plaintiff 6 is the president of the Plaintiff Federation, Plaintiff 3, Plaintiff 5, and Plaintiff 7 are directors of the Plaintiff Federation.

4) Pursuant to Article 3 of the Rural Development Promotion Act, Article 113 of the Local Autonomy Act, Article 16(2) of the Regulations on Administrative Organizations and Quota Criteria, etc. of Local Governments, and Article 22 of the Ordinance on the Management of Hongsung Military Administrative Organizations and Fixed Number of Personnel, the Director of the Red Military Agricultural Technology Center (hereinafter “the Director of the Defendant”) is the Director of the Red Military Agricultural Technology Center established under the jurisdiction of the Defendant Hongsung-gun Gun.

B. Notification of the decision to refund subsidies by the Defendant’s complaint

On January 5, 2016, the Defendant Company notified Nonparty 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the Plaintiff Company’s representative director of Nonparty 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the decision to return subsidies for the commercialization project of the functional compression (hereinafter “the notification of the instant return”) as follows (hereinafter “the notification of the instant return”). The recipient’s “Nonindicted 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and Nonparty 2 of the Plaintiff Company’s representative director, director, director, director, 4, 5, auditor, Plaintiff 7, and Plaintiff Federation Nonparty 2.”

Table contained in the main sentence - A - Future - Business Name: The business for which the plaintiff is entitled to 30,00,000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 10,000,00,000,000, 1,000,000,000, 1,000,000, 1,000,00,00

Article 17 of the Ordinance on the Management of Subsidies from Hongsung-gun 1)

C. Disposition of receiving subsidies from Defendant Hongsung Gun

On January 19, 2016, Defendant Hongsung-gun issued a subsidy restitution disposition (hereinafter “instant restitution disposition”). The addressee of the instant restitution disposition indicated “ Nonparty 1, director 3, director 4, director 5, director 6, director 6, auditor 7, and Nonparty 2, the president of the Plaintiff Federation.” The Defendant Hongsung-gun sent it to Nonparty 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, the representative director of the Plaintiff corporation, along with a notice for payment in the instant restitution disposition, accompanied by the notice for payment. The Defendant Hong-gun sent it to Nonparty 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, and the said payment notice is written only by the payer as “Plaintiff corporation.”

The amount determined to be returned pursuant to Article 17 of the former Ordinance on the Management of Subsidies shall be returned as of January 15, 2016 and shall be paid as of January 15, 2016 by giving notice as follows: (a) Amount recovered: 1,750,040,320 (b) payment method: Payment method of notice or virtual account: (a) payment deadline; (b) payment period; (c) payment method of notice or virtual account;

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 2-1, Evidence No. 6-2, Evidence No. 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. Determination as to the defendants' main safety defense

1) The Defendants, the Plaintiff’s federation, Plaintiff 3, Plaintiff 4, Plaintiff 5, Plaintiff 6, and Plaintiff 7 (hereinafter “Buss Plaintiffs”) are not the other party to the instant return decision notification issued by the Defendant’s complaint and the instant redemption disposition rendered by the Defendant Hong-gun, and are not the other party to the instant redemption disposition rendered by the Defendant Hong-gun, and thus, the remaining Plaintiffs’ lawsuit against the Defendants was filed by the parties who were not standing to sue

2) According to the facts acknowledged above, the remaining plaintiffs were stated in the recipient column of the instant return decision notice (Evidence A No. 1) and the instant redemption disposition (Evidence A No. 2-1) sent by Defendant Hongsung Gun to the rest of the plaintiffs. However, the relevant column of the notice of return decision and the payment notice notice notice attached to the instant redemption disposition are stated only by the plaintiff corporation. Thus, it is clear that the other party to the instant return decision and the instant redemption disposition is neither the plaintiff corporation nor the rest of the plaintiffs. Therefore, the remaining plaintiffs are not the counter-party to the instant restitution decision and the instant redemption disposition, and there is no standing to sue seeking the revocation of the instant restitution decision and the instant redemption disposition (the Defendant and the head of Hongsung Gun were not only the plaintiff corporation but also the rest of the plaintiffs, as seen below No. 3-C., the Plaintiffs did not normally operate the Plaintiff corporation, and the remaining part of the Plaintiff corporation's business were not related to the Plaintiff corporation's redemption decision and the Plaintiff corporation's employees were not related to the Plaintiff corporation's redemption decision or the Plaintiff's employees.

B. Determination as to the main defense of the Defendant’s complaint

1) As the notification of the return decision of this case is merely an administrative agency’s notification and does not constitute an administrative disposition subject to appeal litigation, the Defendant warden’s lawsuit against the Defendant’s complaint is unlawful, and thus, the Defendant’s safety defense is unlawful.

2) As seen earlier, the remaining plaintiffs' lawsuits against the plaintiff's complaint are inappropriate as the plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's main defense against the defendant's complaint is inappropriate. The administrative disposition is an act of an administrative agency's public law that directly changes in specific rights and obligations, such as ordering the establishment of rights or the burden of obligations, or giving rise to other legal effects with respect to a specific matter. Acts that do not directly change in the legal status of the other party or other interested parties such as actions, intermediation, solicitation, and notification inside the administrative agency cannot be subject to appeal litigation (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Du3500, Apr. 24, 2008). In addition, in order to be subject to revocation litigation, an external form as a disposition must be established. Whether a certain act of the administrative agency is an external form as an administrative disposition, general, and in specific cases, an administrative disposition directly affects the rights and obligations of the people as the main agent of public authority at the time of execution of law by the administrative agency.

In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances acknowledged as follows: (a) the Defendant’s complaint notified the return decision in the name of the Defendant’s complaint, namely, ① the Defendant’s complaint, not the Defendant Hong-gun, but the Defendant’s complaint notified the return decision in the name of the Defendant’s complaint; (b) the above notification clearly stated that the subject of return was the Plaintiff’s corporation; and (c) on December 11, 2015, the Defendant’s complaint submitted an opinion before the disposition of the return of the subsidy to the Plaintiff corporation in its name; and (d) the Plaintiff’s submission of an opinion before the disposition of the return of the subsidy was made in the name of the Plaintiff corporation, not the Defendant Hong-gun head; and (e) the Plaintiff’s complaint notified the Plaintiff that the disposition of the return of the subsidy would be implemented if the opinion is not reasonable or if the Plaintiff did not submit an opinion within the due date (the Plaintiff’s above notification did not indicate that the Defendant’s complaint is the Defendant Hong-gun head of the Gun); or (e) the Plaintiff’s corporation has at least an external form.

3. Whether the decision of return and notification of this case and the disposition of recovery are legitimate

A. The plaintiff corporation's assertion

1) As to the instant notification of the instant return decision

Article 17 of the former Subsidy Management Ordinance provides that a person who may order the return of a subsidy shall be the defendant Hong Sung-gun, and the defendant's warden shall not have the authority to dispose of the decision to return the subsidy. Therefore, the notification of the return of this case is unlawful by a disposition by an unauthorized person

2) As to the recovery disposition of this case

A) According to Articles 17 and 10(1) of the former Ordinance on the Management of Subsidies, a decision on the grant of subsidies may be modified or revoked if certain grounds arise before the completion of the project subject to the grant of subsidies. However, in cases where the project subject to the grant of subsidies has already been completed, an order to return all or part of the subsidies already paid is the same as the cancellation of the decision on the grant of subsidies. Therefore, the order to order the full return of the subsidies is not allowed. Nevertheless, the Defendant Hong Sung-gun ordered the full return of the subsidies even after the completion of the project for the commercialization of the project subject to the grant of subsidies (hereinafter “instant project”). The collection disposition of this case was unlawful.

B) With respect to the instant business, the Plaintiff Federation received subsidies from the Plaintiff Federation from 2009 to 2010, and the Plaintiff Company received subsidies from the Defendant Hong Sung-gun in 2011. Thus, the Defendant Hong-gun was able to take a disposition to recover only the subsidies received by the Plaintiff Company, but the Plaintiff Company was able to take a disposition to recover subsidies, including the subsidies received by the Plaintiff Federation, so the instant disposition to recover subsidies was unlawful.

C) The instant restitution disposition is unlawful as it was based on the Defendant’s decision on the return of subsidies by the Defendant’s warden.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) On April 20, 2009, December 17, 2009, and March 22, 2010, the Plaintiff Federation applied for subsidies for the implementation of the instant project to the head of Hongsung Gun. Accordingly, the Defendant Hong Sung Gun decided and granted subsidies to the Plaintiff Federation in order to support the implementation of the instant project as listed below.

The amount paid as of April 23, 200 50,000,000,000 on April 23, 2009 as of the date of determination of subsidies (units: : 5,30,000,000 on October 1, 2009, new dried processing facilities for the instant project: October 82, 200,000,000 on December 3, 2009; 102,30,000,000 on December 3, 200; 30,70,000,000,000 on December 23, 2009; 40,000,000 on December 123, 200, 200, 30,000 or more of goods and facilities as of December 131, 200, 200, 300 or more of this case’s new construction and equipment facilities and equipment;

2) On May 19, 201, the Plaintiff Federation established the Plaintiff on May 12, 2011 for the activation of the instant business and the production and sale of the dried water tank. The Plaintiff Company intended to promote the instant business, and requested the Plaintiff Company to change the Plaintiff’s business entity as the Plaintiff Company. Accordingly, on May 21, 201, the Defendant Hongsung-gun notified the Plaintiff Federation that the instant business entity was changed to the Plaintiff Company.

3) On June 23, 201, the Plaintiff Federation: (a) held a general meeting on June 23, 201; (b) donated a forest of 2,90 square meters ( Address 1 omitted); (c) forest of 5,507 square meters; and (d) forest of 965 square meters to the Plaintiff corporation; and (c) decided on June 21, 201 that the name of the owner shall be the Plaintiff corporation in the construction of an office and factory for the instant project. On June 30, 2011, the Plaintiff Federation completed the registration of ownership transfer on each of the said land to the Plaintiff corporation on the ground of donation on June 23, 2011. The Plaintiff corporation constructed a factory building for the operation of the instant project on each of the said land, and completed the registration of ownership preservation on each of the said land on October 21, 2011.

4) Defendant Hong Sung-gun decided and granted subsidies to the Plaintiff corporation as indicated in the following table.

8. Table (unit: 0. 20. 870,00,00 on September 29, 201; 20. 8. 0. 10, 200 on September 29, 201; 3. 8. 0. 10, 200 on October 25, 201; 4. 8. 0. 10,00 on August 28, 201; 4. 10,00 on October 15, 201, 208; 3. 10,000 on October 3, 201, 208; 4. 10,00 on August 28, 201; 10, 200, 50,000, 10,000 on October 1, 20, 201; 10, 19, 2010

5) On March 23, 2015, Defendant warden notified the Plaintiff corporation, “On-the-spot inspection of the Plaintiff corporation’s workplace,” and “on-site inspection of the Plaintiff corporation’s workplace, the Plaintiff corporation is not normally operated, and thus, the Defendant warden urged the Plaintiff corporation to normalize the Plaintiff corporation’s management by March 31, 2015, on May 15, 2015, the Plaintiff corporation’s “the production basis of the instant project was completed in the year 2011, but the Plaintiff corporation was not normally operated.”

6) From June 2, 2015 to June 4, 2015, the Defendant warden visited the Plaintiff’s place of business and confirmed that the entrance of the Plaintiff’s place of business was corrected, and that the Plaintiff’s place of business was not operating the instant business. The Defendant warden urged the Plaintiff’s corporation to normalize the Plaintiff’s business until June 21, 2015.

7) From June 15, 2015 to June 19, 2015, Defendant warden visited the place of business of the Plaintiff Company and confirmed the fact that the Plaintiff Company still did not run the instant business. Defendant warden demanded that the Plaintiff Company carry out the instant business operation plan by July 15, 2015, but the Plaintiff Company normalizes the management of the Plaintiff Company or did not submit the said documents by the said deadline.

8) On August 25, 2015, the Defendant warden demanded the Plaintiff corporation to submit an operational plan and a certificate of taxation regarding the instant business until September 10, 2015. However, the Plaintiff corporation did not normalize the management of the Plaintiff corporation or submit the said documents by the said deadline.

9) On December 11, 2015, the Defendant warden notified the Plaintiff corporation that “I wish to take a disposition of receiving subsidies pursuant to Article 17 of the former Ordinance on the Management of Subsidies” was a shipment of opinion thereon until December 28, 2015, but the Plaintiff corporation did not present its opinion.

10) On December 31, 2015, Defendant Hongsung-gun decided to return subsidies of KRW 1,750,040,320 to the Plaintiff corporation pursuant to Article 17 subparag. 2 and 3 of the former Ordinance on the Management of Subsidies. After that, Defendant Hong-gun notified the Plaintiff corporation of the decision on the return of subsidies, as seen earlier.

11) As seen earlier on January 19, 2016, Defendant Hong Sung-gun rendered the instant restitution disposition against the Plaintiff corporation.

[Basis] Evidence Nos. 1, 2-1, 2-2, Eul evidence No. 1-1, 2-2, Eul evidence No. 2-1, 2, 3, 3-2, Eul evidence No. 4-1, 2-2, Eul evidence No. 6-1, 2, 7, Eul evidence No. 9-1, 2, 15-1 through 19, Eul evidence No. 20-1, 21-1 through 4, 22-1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 22-1, 23-1 through 4, 23-1, 23-4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) Whether the notification of the instant return decision is lawful

The authority of an administrative agency is restricted in accordance with the nature and contents of the administrative affairs, and there is a limit in regional and personal, so the act of a month beyond the scope of such authority, that is, an administrative disposition by an unincorporated agency, in principle, is null and void because the defect is significant and obvious (see Supreme Court Decisions 93Nu6621, May 27, 1993; 96Nu4374, Jun. 28, 1996). Furthermore, the delegation of administrative authority is recognized only when a law permits delegation since the administrative agency transferred a specific authority to another administrative agency in accordance with the law to exercise the authority of the delegated administrative agency, thereby allowing the delegation of authority.

In light of the above legal principles, Article 17(1) of the former Local Finance Act (amended by Act No. 11900, Jul. 16, 2013); Article 17 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Finance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23121, Sept. 6, 201); Article 29(5) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Finance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23121, Sept. 6, 2011); and Article 17 of the former Ordinance on the Management of Subsidies provides that a person who may order the return of subsidies shall be ordered as Defendant Hong Sung-gun; and the right to order the return of subsidies shall not be otherwise delegated to the head of the Defendant office; thus, the Defendant’s notification of the return of this case is significant and apparent and invalid due to an administrative disposition by an unauthorized agency. However, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s claim seeking the cancellation of the return notification of this case includes the purport of seeking cancellation in the meaning of the declaration

2) Whether the instant restitution disposition is lawful

A) Article 17 subparag. 2 and 3 of the former Subsidy Management Ordinance provides that “when there is no possibility of success in a subsidy program, the grant of a subsidy may be suspended or all or part of the subsidy already granted may be returned when the subsidy program is fully or partially suspended.” The main text of Article 10(1) of the former Subsidy Management Ordinance provides that “The decision to grant a subsidy may be revoked in whole or in part where it is deemed particularly necessary due to changes in circumstances even after the decision to grant a subsidy has been made.” The proviso of the same Article provides that “However, with respect to a subsidy program already implemented, the details and conditions of the subsidy program shall not be modified or the decision to grant

With respect to this case, Article 17 of the former Ordinance on the Management of Subsidies is a provision that can recover all or part of subsidies already granted in cases where a subsidy program can be successful or a person to whom a subsidy has been granted has suspended his/her business. Article 10(1) of the former Ordinance on the Management of Subsidies provides for the revocation of all or part of subsidies where there is a change in circumstances after the decision on the grant of subsidies after the decision on the grant of subsidies. Article 10(1) of the former Ordinance on the Management of Subsidies differs from the requirements and effects, and Article 10(1) proviso of the former Ordinance on the Management of Subsidies does not apply in cases where there are reasons prescribed in Article 17 of the former Ordinance on the Management of Subsidies. However, as seen earlier, the collection disposition of this case is based on subparagraphs 2 and 3 of Article 17 of the former Ordinance on the Management of Subsidies. Accordingly, the Plaintiff

B) Article 12(1) of the former Subsidy Management Ordinance provides that “A subsidized operator shall obtain prior approval from the head of Si/Gun in cases where he/she intends to transfer subsidized projects due to a change in circumstances,” and Article 12(2) of the same Ordinance provides that “A subsidy may be granted to a person who succeeds subsidized projects under the provisions of paragraph (1).” According to the above facts, the Plaintiff Federation established the Plaintiff corporation for the purpose of carrying out the instant project, and obtained approval from the Plaintiff Federation for the succession to the instant project from the Plaintiff Federation. Accordingly, the Plaintiff Federation transferred the ownership of the land purchased using the subsidy granted from the Defendant Red Gun to the Plaintiff corporation. After the approval of the Defendant Hong Gun, the Plaintiff corporation received a subsidy from the Defendant Hong Gun for the instant project, and the ownership of the factory building newly built using the said subsidy belongs to the Plaintiff corporation. In full view of the above facts, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff corporation succeeded to all the legal relations pertaining to the subsidy granted to the instant project in addition to the instant project from the Plaintiff Federation and that the Defendant Hong Gun consented consented consented consented thereto.

Therefore, if the grounds of Article 17 of the former Subsidy Management Ordinance arise, the defendant Hong-gun may order the plaintiff corporation, the successor of the plaintiff federation, to return the subsidy granted to the plaintiff federation. This part of the plaintiff corporation's assertion is without merit.

C) According to the facts acknowledged earlier, the Plaintiff corporation was in the status of not operating the instant project after March 2015, and the Defendant’s continued request for business normalization did not resume the instant project. As such, the Plaintiff corporation constitutes “when there is no possibility of success in the subsidized project” under Article 17 subparag. 2 of the former Ordinance on the Management of Subsidies, and “when the whole or part of the subsidized project is suspended” under Article 17 subparag. 3 of the same Ordinance, the Plaintiff corporation constitutes “when there is a reason for receiving subsidies

Defendant Hong-gun is a person who has the authority to make a decision on the return of subsidies under Article 17 of the former Ordinance on the Management of Subsidies, and according to the facts acknowledged earlier, Defendant Hong-gun decided to return subsidies to the Plaintiff corporation on December 31, 2015, and thus, it cannot be deemed unlawful as it is based on the decision on the return of subsidies made by a person who is not authorized to dispose of the instant disposition. This part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

D) Therefore, the instant restitution disposition is lawful.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, each lawsuit against the remaining plaintiffs against the defendants shall be dismissed, and the claims against the defendant's complaint against the plaintiff's defendant shall be accepted with merit, and the claims against the defendant's Hong-gun shall be dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

[Attachment]

Judges Park Man-man (Presiding Judge)

Note 1) The former Ordinance on the Management of Subsidies of Hongsung-gun, which was amended by Ordinance No. 2090 on December 12, 2013, means the former Ordinance on the Management of Subsidies of Hongsung-gun (hereinafter “former Ordinance on the Management of Subsidies”).