A. The Plaintiff is a trucking business operator who engages in the business of commercially transporting freight using B trucks (hereinafter “instant trucks”) with permission from the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport

B. Around January 2013, the Plaintiff purchased oil at the D gas station located in Cheongju-si, Cheongju-si, and applied for fuel subsidies by unfluoring the purchase amount of oil, and received an excessive amount of KRW 8,570,924 by the same method until March 2014.

C. On June 30, 2014, the Defendant recovered total of KRW 14,090,610 (including KRW 8,570,924) of the fuel subsidies paid by the Plaintiff in relation to the instant truck from January 2, 2013 to March 2014 pursuant to Article 44(3) of the former Trucking Transport Business Act (amended by Act No. 13382, Jun. 22, 2015; hereinafter “former Trucking Act”) and Article 29(1) of the Regulations on the Management of Fuel Subsidies (hereinafter “Management Regulations for Fuel Subsidies”), and issued a disposition to suspend the payment of subsidies for six months.

(A) Each entry in Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including a serial number), and the purport of the entire pleadings, as a whole, that there is no dispute about the recovery of oil subsidies among the above dispositions (which is the ground for recognition)

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant recovered the full amount of the fuel subsidies paid in relation to the instant truck in accordance with Article 29(1) of the Management Regulations for Fuel Subsidies.

However, Article 29(1) of the Family Subsidy Management Regulations does not have any delegation of superior statutes, and there is no external binding force, and otherwise there is no legal basis to recover subsidies that the Defendant received from the Plaintiff in a normal way.

Therefore, the part which exceeds the fuel subsidy paid out of the disposition of this case is legal basis.