보조금반환처분취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff is a social welfare foundation whose main business purpose is to establish and operate vocational rehabilitation facilities for disabled persons; from February 1, 2013 to Busan Shipping Daegu C and 1201, “D Vocational Rehabilitation Facilities” (hereinafter “instant facilities”); and managing and operating B as the head of the relevant facilities until now.
B. The Plaintiff received subsidies from the Defendant for personnel expenses for the head of the instant facility, personnel expenses for employees, additional operating expenses, etc., and the Defendant, the head of the instant facility, registered his/her business under his/her personal name and operated a restaurant called “F” (hereinafter “instant restaurant”), which is located under the Busan Shipping Daegu E and 110 underground, issued a request for correction to B on April 4, 2014 on the ground that one employee of the instant facility and five working persons with disabilities work in the instant restaurant are illegal and unjust.
C. On April 17, 2014, the Defendant issued a prior notice of disposition to B, following the hearing on May 8, 2014, and issued a refund of subsidies of KRW 58,788,010, in total, KRW 38,50,00 for the facility site personnel expenses paid to the Plaintiff and B from July 19, 2013 to March 19, 2014, and KRW 20,218,660 for employees personnel expenses, and KRW 519,350 for additional operating expenses (hereinafter “prior disposition”). D.
B filed a lawsuit against the Defendant on September 30, 2014 against this Court 2014Guhap2168, and the Defendant confirmed that he/she was not the operator of the instant facilities, but the Plaintiff during the instant lawsuit, and revoked the previous disposition on February 27, 2015, and the said lawsuit was concluded on March 19, 2015.
E. On May 29, 2015, the Defendant: (a) on May 29, 2015, ordered the Plaintiff to work in the instant restaurant, which is owned by the head of the facility, for an act that the head of the facility owns and operates a separate business site; and (b) one employee of the facility and five employees with disabilities.