Defendant.

A. On December 23, 2016, the Plaintiff received subsidies for discontinuance of business from the Defendant on December 23, 2016, as well as KRW 28,262,080, which was implemented pursuant to the Special Act on Assistance to Farmers, Fishermen, etc. following the Conclusion of Free Trade Agreements (hereinafter “Free Trade Agreement Agriculture and Fisheries Act”).

B. On March 3, 2017, the Defendant’s agent conducted a field investigation on the instant land, and confirmed that the Plaintiff transferred part of the seedlings to another place without disposing of the entire quantity of the seedlings, and subsequently transferred the instant land to another place after receiving the subsidy for closure of business.

C. On October 16, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition to recover KRW 28,33,310 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) totaling KRW 28,262,080 and interest KRW 71,230 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was unlawful since the Plaintiff’s 50 shares out of 950 shares of Blulue tree cultivated and received a subsidy for it, and the remainder of 450 shares were excluded from compensation.

The Defendant’s disposition of this case is against the principle of trust protection or the principle of trust and good faith to receive the subsidy of KRW 3,885,00 from the Plaintiff, without compensating for 450 weeks.

In addition, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s additional disposal of 450 shares of Blulue tree after the instant disposition, the instant disposition was unlawful by abusing and abusing discretion.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. 1) The evidence mentioned above as well as evidence Nos. 7 and 20 as well as the purport of the entire pleadings are considered as a whole.