부당이득 징수결정 처분 취소 등
1. The plaintiff's appeal is all 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 cited by the court of first instance is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding some contents as follows. Thus, this is accepted by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of
The following shall be added between conduct 13 and 14 in the judgment of the first instance:
Article 13-2 (2) of the former Rice Income Preservation Act (amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013) (amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013) provides that the first disposition that collects KRW 77,026,40, an amount calculated by the Defendant, out of the temporary disability compensation benefits that the Plaintiff received with respect to the injury and disease of this case, shall be deemed unfair. However, the purport of the above Supreme Court decision is that Article 13-2 (1) of the former Rice Income Preservation Act (amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013) (amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013) (1) where the Minister of Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries has already paid the direct rice income preservation amount, etc., notwithstanding Article 13 (1).
In such cases, where it falls under Article 13 (1) 1, an additional amount shall be collected twice the amount paid.
“The amount already paid,” which is the basis for additionally collecting twice the amount, is limited to “the subsidies received by false or other unlawful means,” and the Defendant’s first disposition is determined to collect KRW 38,513,160,40, which is the remainder of the amount calculated by subtracting the amount of KRW 15,003,390, excluding the amount of KRW 15,003,390, from the total amount of temporary layoff benefits received by the Plaintiff, and the amount of KRW 38,513,160, which is the remainder of the period during which the Plaintiff did not operate his/her business and the period during which the hospital was actually receiving hospital treatment, as unjust enrichment. The above KRW 38,513,160, which is the amount of temporary layoff benefits
As such, it goes against the purpose of the above Supreme Court decision.