Unlike the foregoing, “amount already paid” as the criteria for additionally collecting twice the amount pursuant to the latter part of Article 13-2(1) of the same Act ought to be understood as confined to “subsidies received by false or other unlawful means.” The reasons are as follows.

① Whether the “amount already paid”, which is the criteria for additionally collecting twice the amount under the said provision, is the entire amount of subsidies received for all farmland registered by the relevant farmer, etc. or is limited to the amount of subsidies received by false or other unlawful means is unclear.

Additional collection of subsidies on the ground of false or unlawful grounds is an indivable administrative disposition, and administrative laws and regulations that serve as the basis for an indivating administrative disposition must be strictly construed and applied, and where its meaning is unclear, it shall not be construed and applied in a manner unfavorable to the other party to the administrative disposition. Therefore, insofar as the meaning of the “amount already paid” under the provision of this case is unclear, it cannot be readily concluded that this refers to the “entire amount of subsidies already paid.”

② There is no ground to deem that the purport of additionally collecting twice the entire amount of subsidies paid with respect to all farmland is included, even in cases where some farmland among multiple farmland registered in the legislative intent at the time of introducing the additional collection system is false or unjust.

Therefore, even if considering the background or intent of introducing the additional collection system, the “amount already paid” which is the basis for additionally collecting twice the amount under the said provision is not naturally interpreted as the entire amount of subsidies paid.

③ If it is interpreted that the additional collection of twice the entire amount of subsidies for all registered farmlands should be made even in cases where some of the registered farmlands is false or unjust, such an additional collection shall be made in itself more harsh, as well as the degree of offense is not considered in imposing sanctions, and such conclusion does not coincide with the principle of proportionality or the principle of responsibility. Such conclusion is difficult to be justified even if considering the purport of introducing the additional collection system or the public interest achieved therefrom.

[Dissenting Opinion by Justice Kim Jae-hyung and Justice Park Jung-hwa] Since there is no formula in front of the “amount paid” under the latter part of Article 13-2(1) of the former Rice Income Preservation Act, there is no basis for interpreting this amount by limiting it to the wrongfully received amount. Although there is no specific formula in front of the “amount paid” under the foregoing provision, it is natural to interpret the amount recovered under the former part of the same Article as the Majority Opinion, as the total amount of subsidies, and the amount additionally collected under the latter part of the same Article differently from the wrongfully received

In light of the reason for the amendment of the former Rice Income Preservation Act (amended by Act No. 9531, Mar. 25, 2009), it does not seem to have tried to impose restrictions, such as limiting the “amount paid” to the amount wrongfully received.

It is difficult to interpret the “amount already paid” under the above provision as the amount wrongfully received, but not contrary to the principle of proportionality, and to interpret it as the entire amount of subsidies as a violation of the principle of proportionality.

In light of the language and text or legislative intent of the aforementioned provision, the “amount already paid” as the criteria for additionally collecting twice the amount pursuant to the said provision ought to be construed as the entire amount of subsidies paid with respect to all registered farmlands, and even if so, it cannot be deemed as contrary to the principle of proportionality, etc.

1. A. According to the former Act on the Preservation of Rice Income, Etc. (amended by Act No. 9531, Mar. 25, 2009; amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013; repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Agricultural Income Preservation Act, effective January 1, 2015; hereinafter “former Rice Income Preservation Act”), the Minister for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries shall grant “income subsidies” (hereinafter “subsidies”) to farmers, etc. every year to stabilize their income to the extent of the standards for exemption from the domestic subsidy reduction commitment under the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (Article 4).

According to the same Act, where a registered or received direct payments has been registered or received by fraud or other improper means (Article 13(1)1), the Minister for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries shall not fully grant subsidies for all registered farmland (Article 13(1)1), and where subsidies have already been paid notwithstanding the aforementioned grounds (Article 13-2(1)1), and where subsidies fall under Article 13(1)1, he/she shall additionally collect twice the amount paid (the latter part of Article 13-2(1); hereinafter referred to as “instant provision”).

The Act on the Preservation of Rice Income, Etc. before the amendment by Act No. 9531, Mar. 25, 2009 only provides that where a person who registered a subsidy has made a registration by false or other unlawful means, the entire amount of subsidies shall not be paid and the amount already paid shall be collected if any, and no provision exists to require additional collection (Article 13(1)1). However, in the process of implementing the system, there are problems such as the payment of subsidies to new entry farmers who are not superior to the opening of the rice market or those who have income other than a fixed amount of agricultural income, etc., which clearly stipulate the recipients of subsidies, while introducing a system that additionally collects twice the amount paid to those who registered or received subsidies by false or other unlawful means to strengthen the level of sanctions against wrongful recipients.

B. Where subsidies whose payment is restricted pursuant to each subparagraph of Article 13(1) of the former Rice Income Preservation Act have already been paid, such subsidies shall be returned pursuant to the main sentence of Article 13-2(1) of the same Act. In cases where Article 13(1)1 of the former Rice Income Preservation Act exists, subsidies whose payment is restricted are “total amount of subsidies for all registered farmlands,” and thus, if subsidies are already paid, the entire amount shall be returned.

Unlike the foregoing, the “amount already paid,” which is the criteria for additionally collecting twice the amount under the instant provision, ought to be resumed to be confined to the “amount of subsidies received by false or other unlawful means.” The reasons are as follows.

(1) Whether the “amount already paid”, which is the criteria for additionally collecting twice the amount under the instant provision, is the full amount of subsidies received for all farmlands registered by the relevant farmer, etc. or is limited to the amount of subsidies received by false or other unlawful means is unclear solely with the language and text of the instant provision.

Article 13(1)1 of the instant provision provides that “In this case, the amount already paid shall be additionally collected twice the amount already paid.” However, there may be room to interpret that “the amount already paid” refers to the entire amount of subsidies paid with respect to all the registered farmlands. However, it is also possible to interpret otherwise as “the amount of subsidies falling under Article 13(1)1.” In other words, it is unreasonable to interpret that “the amount already paid” under the instant provision is “the amount of subsidies paid by fraud or other improper means,” and that “the amount of subsidies paid by false or other wrongful means” is “the amount of subsidies paid.”

Additional collection of subsidies on the ground of false or unlawful grounds is an indivant administrative disposition, and administrative laws and regulations that serve as the basis for indivating administrative disposition must be strictly construed and applied, and where its meaning is unclear, it shall not be construed and applied in a manner unfavorable to the other party to the administrative disposition. Therefore, insofar as the meaning of the “amount already paid” under the provision of this case is unclear, it cannot be readily concluded that this refers to the “entire amount of subsidies already paid.”

(2) The additional collection system under the instant provision is introduced to strengthen sanctions against those who unlawfully received subsidies.

However, the falsity and illegality of Article 13(1)1 of the former Rice Income Preservation Act may be related to the qualification of the relevant farmer, etc., and may be related to a specific farmland among the farmland that he/she registered. However, as seen earlier, the major issue at the time of the introduction of the additional collection system was that a person who is not entitled to receive subsidies receives subsidies was receiving subsidies unlawfully.

Where a person who is not entitled to receive subsidies has received subsidies by fraudulent or other illegal means, the entire amount received by him/her is the amount wrongfully received. Therefore, there is no difference in the conclusion that the “amount already paid” which is the criteria for additionally collecting twice the amount under the instant provision is interpreted as the total amount of subsidies or the amount wrongfully received is interpreted as the amount wrongfully received.

On the other hand, there is no ground to view that the purport of additional collection is to additionally collect twice the entire amount of subsidies paid with respect to all farmland even in cases where some farmland among multiple farmland registered in the legislative intent at the time of introducing the additional collection system is false or unjust.

Therefore, even if considering the background or intent of introducing the additional collection system, the “amount already paid” which is the criteria for additionally collecting twice the amount under the instant provision is not naturally interpreted as the entire amount of subsidies paid.

(3) Under the principle of proportionality (the principle of proportionality), a means to achieve the administrative purpose should be effective and appropriate for achieving the purpose of the administration, and should, as far as possible, bring about infringement to the minimum extent possible. Moreover, the introduction of the said means should not be capable of carrying out the public interest in which infringement is intended (see Supreme Court Decisions 96Nu1096, Sept. 26, 1997; 97Nu1501, Apr. 24, 1998, etc.).

The primary purpose of Article 13(1)1 and Article 13-2(1)1 of the former Rice Income Preservation Act, which provides that where subsidies are received by fraudulent or other illegal means, the entire amount already paid shall not be returned, and the same shall not apply to compensating for losses incurred by financial resources necessary for the implementation of the subsidies system. However, even though ordering the return of subsidies for the portion wrongfully received, the purpose of restitution can be achieved by ordering the return of subsidies for the portion wrongfully received, the order to return the entire amount of subsidies paid for all registered farmlands that are not unlawfully received, which are not unlawfully received, may be deemed to have the nature of sufficiently punitive punishment in itself. Nevertheless, in addition, if the “amount already paid” under the instant provision is additionally collected twice as to the portion of subsidies received by the relevant farmer, etc. that is not false or unjust means, it would be excessive to impose double sanctions.

If the “amount already paid” under the instant provision and “the entire amount of subsidies paid with respect to all farmlands registered by the relevant farmer, etc.” are deemed to be “the entire amount of subsidies granted with respect to all farmlands registered by the relevant farmer, etc., the conclusion that the entire amount of subsidies received with respect to all registered farmlands ought to be returned, and that the same should be additionally paid twice as much as the relevant amount of subsidies is too harsh compared with the relevant liability.

In addition, the principle of equity may also be significantly inconsistent with the principle of equity. In a case where the proportion of the amount unlawfully received out of the total amount of subsidies already paid is lower, if the same is uniformly collected twice the amount of subsidies for the entire farmland without reflecting such fact, the degree of the violation would be relatively heavy as the degree of the violation is uneasy.

Meanwhile, in a case where there is a reason for not paying subsidies, the issue of additional collection would not arise if the administrative agency did not grant subsidies by finding out the same in advance. However, if the administrative agency failed to identify it and thus made subsidies, then the administrative agency would additionally collect twice the amount of subsidies as well as the recovery of subsidies. Moreover, depending on whether the administrative agency was aware of it in advance, it may be the unreasonable conclusion that the administrative agency would cause damage to the farmer, etc. rather than where the accuracy of the administrative agency’s business falls.

Ultimately, when interpreting that the additional collection of twice the entire amount of subsidies for all registered farmlands should be made even in cases where some of the registered farmlands is false or unjust, the severity of the offense is not considered in the course of imposing sanctions, and such conclusion is inconsistent with the principle of proportionality or the principle of responsibility. Such conclusion is difficult to be justified even if considering the purport of introducing the additional collection system or the public interest achieved therefrom.

(4) Therefore, in order to exclude the unreasonable conclusion that may arise when interpreting the “amount already paid” under the instant provision as the “entire amount of subsidies received by the relevant farmer, etc. with respect to all farmland registered,” it is reasonable to limit the said “amount already paid” to the “subsidies received by false or other unlawful means.” This is the same in light of the language and purpose of the relevant statutory provision, as a matter of principle, to the extent that it is possible to interpret a certain statutory provision to the extent possible (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Du43707, Feb. 18, 2016).

2. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveals the following facts.

A. From 2005 to 2010, the Plaintiff received the total amount of KRW 11,295,100 from the Defendant with respect to multiple farmland, including the (location omitted) in Chungcheong-gun. Of them, subsidies in 2009 are KRW 2,828,440.

B. On June 27, 2011, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing unjust enrichment on the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”) of KRW 15,773,080 on the ground that the Plaintiff had not maintained the shape of farmland in relation to some farmland among the farmland for which subsidies were granted, and that the Plaintiff had received subsidies by registering it as farmland eligible for subsidies by false or other unjust means without actually establishing a farmer’s intention (=the total amount of KRW 11,295,110 received subsidies from 2005 to 2010 + the additional collection amount of KRW 5,656,880 for KRW 2,828,440 for subsidies in 209 (=2,828,440 x 40 x 2) - 1,178,910 for a voluntary return amount (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. Meanwhile, among subsidies received after June 26, 2009, the enforcement date of the former Rice Income Preservation Act, the amount unlawfully received in relation to farmland that failed to meet the requirements for payment is KRW 1,525,410.

3. The lower court determined that the amount to be additionally collected pursuant to the provision of this case is not twice the total amount of the paid subsidies, but twice the amount to be additionally collected pursuant to the provision of this case, on the grounds that, in cases where some farmland among the farmland for which subsidies were granted was paid was falsely or unlawfully collected, the amount exceeding 3,050,820 won (i.e., 13,167,020 won x 2 times) (i.e., 15,773,080 won) among the disposition of this case - (i.e., 5,780 won - 5,800 won - 3,656,880 won for the amount to be additionally collected pursuant to the provision of this case - 3,050 won for the amount to be additionally collected (2,828,440 won x 1,525,410 won) and 13,160 won for the aforementioned amount to be collected is unlawful.

4. Such determination by the lower court is justifiable as it is based on the legal doctrine as seen earlier, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the scope of additional collection under the instant provision, or by failing

5. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party, and ex officio correction is made on the ground that there is an obvious clerical error in the judgment of the court of first instance. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices, except for a dissenting opinion by Justice Kim Jae-hyung and Justice Park Jung-hwa as to the scope of additional collection pursuant to

6. Dissenting Opinion by Justice Kim Jae-hyung and Justice Park Jung-hwa

A. The Majority Opinion construed the “amount already paid,” which is the basis for calculating the amount additionally collected under the instant provision, as “the entire amount of subsidies received by the relevant farmer, etc. with respect to all farmland registered,” not “the entire amount of subsidies received by the relevant farmer,” but limited to “illegally received subsidies.” The Majority Opinion argues that the conclusion that the amount ought to be considered as the entire amount of subsidies under the statutory language and text is not naturally derived, and that an excessive harsh result may arise from the foregoing perspective.

However, the Majority Opinion’s interpretation is contrary to the language and legislative intent of the instant provision, and is inconsistent with the legal system and system of relevant statutes or regulations. Moreover, the Majority Opinion causes unnecessary confusion with respect to the interpretation of statutes. The detailed reasons are as follows.

B. First, the Majority Opinion’s interpretation goes against and is natural as to the interpretation of the law, in particular, the method of ordinary interpretation of the text.

(1) As a matter of principle, the law is a universal norm with the same binding force to many and unspecified persons. The interpretation must be made to ensure objective validity by clarifying the standard meaning of the law, as much as possible, and to maintain consistency with all the people as possible so as not to undermine legal stability. In addition, since positive law is established in consideration of a universal and typical matter, it is also required to interpret that the law has a concrete validity so that it can be the most reasonable solution for a specific case when applying the law in a variety of cases that occur in society reality. In short, the purpose of statutory interpretation must be sufficiently interpreted within the extent that does not undermine legal stability. Furthermore, the legislative intent and purpose of the law should be faithfully interpreted in the ordinary meaning of the language used in the law. Furthermore, the systematic and logical interpretation method that takes into account the legislative intent and purpose of the law, its legislative history, harmony with the entire legal order, and relations with other statutes should be further mobilized to ensure that the request for statutory interpretation can be complied with, as long as it does not have any more specific meaning and meaning than 20 statutory meaning and meaning of the law.

There are many sanctions against a person who receives money by fraud or other wrongful means against a person who fails to meet the requirements under the statutes that require an administrative agency to pay money to a certain person. In such a case, if a person who received money by fraud or other wrongful means was legally able to receive money, the issue arises whether the standard amount for recovery or additional collection is the entire amount received or the amount received. If the language and text of the statutes clearly stipulate the standard amount for recovery or additional collection, such determination ought to be made by taking into account the purpose of sanctions, legislative intent, form of provision, etc.

(2) Article 13(1) of the former Rice Income Preservation Act is transferred as it is. “If a registrant or recipient of subsidies for rice income, etc. falls under subparagraph 1 or 2, the Minister for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries shall not pay all or part of the fixed direct payments and variable direct payments for all registered farmland, and if he/she falls under subparagraph 3 or 4, the Minister shall not pay all or part of the fixed direct payments or variable direct payments for the relevant farmland.”

Subparagraph 1 cited “cases of registration or receipt by fraud or other improper means.” In cases falling under subparagraph 1, it is apparent that “all fixed or variable direct payments for all registered farmland” is not paid. This is distinguishable from cases falling under subparagraph 2, and cases where a person does not pay all or part of fixed or variable direct payments for the farmland in question in cases falling under subparagraph 3(b)(4).

Article 13-2 (1) of the former Rice Income Preservation Act is transferred as it is. "The Minister for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries shall return direct payments for preserving rice income, etc., if already paid, notwithstanding the grounds falling under any subparagraph of Article 13 (1). In such cases, in cases falling under Article 13 (1) 1, he/she shall additionally collect twice the amount paid."

In the event that direct payments compensating for rice income, etc. have already been paid in spite of the existence of any reason falling under Article 13(1)1, the Minister for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries shall recover the direct payments compensating for rice income, etc. The amount to be recovered is clearly “all fixed direct payments and variable direct payments for all registered farmland.” This is because the amount to be recovered has been paid even though Article 13(1) prevents this amount from paying under Article 13(1). The Majority Opinion is also the same position with regard to this point. In this case, the latter part of Article 13-2(1) (i.e., the amount to be additionally collected twice the amount paid under Article 13-2(1) (the latter part) (i.e., the instant provision) and the amount to be collected should be considered as “the total amount of direct payments compensating for rice income, etc. already paid.”

As such, if the relevant provisions, text, text, and interpretation are organized according to the payment stage, recovery stage, and additional collection stage of rice subsidies, the following table is as follows.

The amount of fixed direct payments and variable direct payments for all farmland registered under the former part of Article 13(1) of the former Rice Income Preservation Act, which are included in the main text, shall not be paid, but shall be refunded if the full amount of subsidies collected was already paid with direct payments compensating for rice income, etc. under the former part of Article 13-2(1) of the former Rice Income Preservation Act. The amount additionally collected as the full amount of subsidies shall be additionally collected twice the amount paid under the latter part of Article 13-2(1) of the former Rice Income Preservation Act. Two times the full amount of subsidies shall be collected.

This is an easy and simple interpretation of the provision of this case. I would like to re-examine the legitimacy of this case.

(3) In light of the language and text of the instant provision, the “amount already paid”, which is the standard amount for additionally collecting twice the amount, ought to be deemed as “the entire amount of subsidies paid with respect to all registered farmlands,” as in the case of restrictions on or collection of subsidies.

(A) Since there is no formula in front of the “amount paid” under the instant provision, there is no basis to interpret it by limiting it to the amount of illegal receipt.

The Majority Opinion argues that the part of the instant provision “in a case falling under Article 13(1)1,” can be interpreted as “amount paid immediately following the provision.” However, the part “in a case falling under Article 13(1)1,” which leads to the phrase “in a case falling under Article 13(1)1, additional collection shall be made twice the amount paid,” is consistent with the ordinary meaning of the language and text, and is natural. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that only the portion “amount paid” can be removed separately as the Majority Opinion.

(B) In cases falling under Article 13(1)1 of the former Rice Income Preservation Act, “unclaimed subsidies” that should be returned pursuant to the main sentence of Article 13-2(1) of the same Act (hereinafter “collection clause”) is construed as the total amount of subsidies paid with respect to all registered farmlands, and the “amount already paid” that is the standard amount for additionally collecting twice the amount pursuant to the latter part of the same Article, which is the latter part of the same Article, as the “amount additionally collected pursuant to the instant provision, is not harmonious and colored.

In the case of Article 13(1)1 of the former Rice Income Preservation Act, the Majority Opinion assumes that the amount to be returned pursuant to the recovery provision is the total amount of subsidies. Although there is no particular formula prior to the “amount already paid” under the instant provision, it is natural to interpret the amount collected pursuant to the preamble as the Majority Opinion is the total amount of subsidies, and the standard amount to be additionally collected pursuant to the latter is different from the amount of wrongfully received subsidies.

(C) The instant provision is natural to mean that “where subsidies have already been paid even if it falls under any of the subparagraphs of Article 13(1) of the former Rice Income Preservation Act, they shall be returned, and in particular, where subsidies fall under subparagraph 1, they shall be additionally collected twice.”

Additional collection under the instant provision is natural on the premise that the entire amount of subsidies was collected without distinguishing the portion that was unlawfully received and that was paid from the portion that was not the same. In a case where the entire amount of subsidies are recovered on account of false or other unlawful grounds, the purport of the instant provision ought to be read to the effect that additional collection should be made. The phrase “additional collection should be made” means that additional collection should be made in addition to the entire amount of subsidies collected. If there is no particular explanation as to the amount, it is necessary to interpret that additional collection is made twice the recovered amount (the entire amount of subsidies where false or unlawful exists).

Meanwhile, it is apparent that cases where subsidies are registered or received by false or other unlawful means under Article 13(1)1 of the former Rice Income Preservation Act are not included in cases where subsidies are received by mistake or minor negligence. In such cases, it does not constitute the subject of additional collection under the instant provision.

(4) In cases where any false or unlawful means exists with respect to registration and receipt of subsidies, it is natural to regard the amount or standard amount of subsidies as the entire amount of subsidies at the stage of paying, withdrawing, and additionally collecting subsidies. It is difficult to understand that the amount or standard amount of subsidies is not the entire amount of subsidies, but the amount of illegal receipt, as the Majority Opinion states, only with respect to the scope of additionally collecting subsidies when the general public read the instant provision. Accordingly, the Majority’s interpretation that is identical to the Majority Opinion may ultimately undermine the consistency and unity of statutory interpretation, thereby undermining

(5) The instant provision generally applies to all cases where false or unjust registration and receipt of subsidies are made. The false or unjust means as referred to in Article 13(1)1 of the former Rice Income Preservation Act may be related to the qualification of the relevant farmer, etc., and may be related to a specific farmland among the registered farmland. The same may apply to cases where the ratio of the occupation of farmland related to false or unjust means among the registered total farmland is lower. The instant provision applies to all the above cases.

In interpreting the instant provision, the instant provision ought to be interpreted in a general way that enables sees the aforementioned diverse cases. In a case where there is any false or unlawful manner with respect to the qualification of farmers, etc., even if the amount additionally collected under the instant provision is considered to be twice the entire amount of subsidies paid. The same shall also apply to a case where there is any false or unjust provision with respect to a considerable portion of registered farmland. In addition, the Plaintiff’s total amount of subsidies received during the year 2009 is KRW 2,828,440, and the amount wrongfully received exceeds half of the entire amount of subsidies as KRW 1,525,410. In such a case, additionally collecting twice the amount wrongfully received, and additionally collecting twice, KRW 2,828,440, the entire amount of subsidies, which is KRW 1,525,410, the amount of subsidies received, and additionally collecting twice, KRW 2,828,40, which is the entire amount of subsidies, cannot be deemed harsh on the basis of what the legislators may choose.

Nevertheless, the Majority Opinion argues that collecting twice the entire amount of subsidies in such cases by citing only virtual special cases (such as where only some of registered farmland is related to farmland, and there is any false or unlawful collection) may be a harsh sanction. In short, the “amount paid” under the provision of this case beyond the ordinary meaning of the language and text is interpreted as the amount wrongfully received. The Majority Opinion, like the Majority Opinion, deems that the interpretation deviating from the ordinary meaning of the language and text of the pertinent provision in order to derive the conclusion that is best consistent with a case where a certain provision of this case is applied, is more complicated if it deviates from the ordinary meaning of the language and text of the relevant provision, with the focus of the case where it is too special.

C. Furthermore, the Majority Opinion is inconsistent with the explicit grounds and purport of the statutory amendment.

(1) Of the grounds for amendment of the former Rice Income Preservation Act (amended by Act No. 9531, Mar. 25, 2009), the purport of the part related to the provision of this case is that “a person who was registered or received subsidies by fraud or other improper means shall also be collected twice the amount paid, in addition to the amount paid.” In light of the grounds for amendment, it does not appear to have been intended to impose restrictions on “amount already paid,” which is the criteria for additionally collecting twice the amount paid pursuant to the provision of this case, by limiting the amount paid, to the amount wrongfully received. As such, in the former Rice Income Preservation Act (amended by Act No. 9531, Mar. 25, 2009), it is reasonable to understand that “a person who additionally collects twice the amount paid, other than the amount paid,” in the grounds for amendment, is additionally collecting twice the amount in full.

(2) The legislative purport of this Act is to equally confirm not only rice farming but also dry field farming through the amendment process of the Agricultural Income Preservation Act, which was enacted on January 26, 2012 and enforced on January 1, 2015, to preserve certain income. However, the Act on Agricultural Income Preservation (hereinafter “former Agricultural Income Preservation Act”) prior to the amendment by Act No. 14589, Mar. 14, 2017, also has provisions on restricting, recovering, and additionally collecting subsidies, as in the former Rice Income Preservation Act, and the contents thereof are almost the same. In other words, according to the Agricultural Income Preservation Act prior to the amendment, the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs does not fully pay subsidies for all registered farmland (Article 14(1)1), and where a person who has registered or received subsidies registers or receives subsidies by fraud or other improper means, the entire amount of subsidies should be refunded, notwithstanding Article 15(1)1 of the former Rice Income Preservation Act (Article 15(1)5).

However, under the Agricultural Income Preservation Act amended by Act No. 14589, Mar. 14, 2017 (hereinafter “Agricultural Income Preservation Act”), the provisions governing sanctions were newly established where subsidies are registered or received by mistake or minor negligence. Following the amendment, the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs does not grant all or part of subsidies for the relevant farmland where a registrant or recipient of subsidies falsely registers or erroneously receives subsidies by mistake or minor negligence (Article 14(1)6), and where subsidies are already paid, they shall be returned if they are already paid (Article 15(1)1). Moreover, the additional collection does not constitute an object of additional collection where subsidies are erroneously or minorly collected due to only farmland under Article 14(1)1 of the Agricultural Income Preservation Act, as the former Act was amended. The purport of the amended Act is that the entire amount of subsidies is “where subsidies are registered or received by mistake or minor means, the entire amount of subsidies is not the same as that of subsidies already paid by mistake or gross negligence.”

Therefore, there is no reason to interpret the provisions of this case differently from the latter part of Article 15 (1) of the Agricultural Income Preservation Act prior to the amendment.

(3) If it is harsh to collect additionally twice the entire amount of subsidies in a case where there is any false or unlawful manner as pointed out by the Majority Opinion, it is a matter to be resolved by the amendment of the Act. In fact, as seen earlier, the Agricultural Income Preservation Act was amended. Therefore, construing the provision of this case as stated in the Majority Opinion may infringe the legislative power of the National Assembly.

D. Although the “amount already paid” under the instant provision should be interpreted as the amount wrongfully received, it does not go against the principle of proportionality, and it is difficult to view that the entire amount of subsidies would constitute a violation of the principle of proportionality.

(1) The Majority Opinion has the nature of punishing the return of the entire amount of subsidies even if some of the subsidies were illegally received, and thus, it is excessive to impose double sanctions to additionally collect twice the entire amount of subsidies.

However, even if only two times the amount of “amount paid” under the provision of this case is additionally collected based on the amount of illegal receipt, as indicated in the Majority Opinion, this also constitutes double sanctions added to the collection of the total amount of punitive character. As long as the additional collection itself constitutes duplicate sanctions, it is only a matter of whether the “amount paid” under the provision of this case appears to be the total amount of subsidies paid as the amount of illegal receipt.

(2) In cases where the Majority Opinion considers the “amount already paid” under the instant provision as the entire amount of subsidies, even in cases where subsidies were illegally received only for certain farmlands among registered farmlands, the entire amount of subsidies was returned and additionally collected twice as much as the amount was additionally harsh, and the same is inconsistent with the principle of equity as the amount unlawfully received was reduced among the entire subsidies.

However, the issue of equity is not limited to “additional collection” but may arise where subsidies are illegally registered or received only with respect to part of registered farmland, or where subsidies are not received or recovered. In other words, even where subsidies are illegally registered or received only for some of registered farmland, the entire amount of subsidies for all farmland is not paid or returned. The same is also applicable to the phase of paying subsidies and the phase of recovering subsidies. However, the Majority Opinion does not limit the limited amount of subsidies or the collected amount where subsidies are illegally registered or received only for some of registered farmland. Ultimately, the Majority Opinion does not coincide with the interpretation of the instant provision concerning restriction on payment and collection provisions and additional collection.

Meanwhile, it is necessary to examine Article 13(3) of the former Rice Income Preservation Act. The standards for restricting the payment of fixed and variable direct payments under paragraph (1) are to be prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries in consideration of the type of offense and the degree of offense, etc. In accordance with the delegation, Article 7 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Rice Income Preservation Act provides that the payment of subsidies may be increased or reduced depending on the type and degree of offense committed and the degree of offense committed. This provision is to take into account the principle of equity and proportionality or the principle of responsibility. In the process of establishing the instant provision regarding the recovery of subsidies or additional collection of subsidies, there is room for analogy of this provision in the case of collection of subsidies or additional collection of subsidies. However, this issue is distinguishable from that of the restriction on the payment of subsidies, collection of subsidies, and additional collection of subsidies under Articles 13(1) and 13-2(1) of the former Rice Income Preservation Act.

(3) The difference depending on whether the “amount already paid” under the instant provision ought to be considered as the entire amount of subsidies received or not is three times as to whether the amount collected or collected for the portion other than the amount wrongfully received is one or three times as to the amount received. Therefore, in order to narrowly interpret the “amount already paid” under the instant provision as the amount wrongfully received, in light of the principle of proportionality, the additional collection should be deemed too harsh.

The reason for imposing additional sanctions by withdrawing the total amount of subsidies that are not simply the amount of illegal subsidies and additionally collecting the same therefrom is to ensure that subsidies are properly paid only for the sake of the stabilization of the income of farmers, etc. by preventing any attempt to unlawfully receive subsidies. In order to achieve this purpose, whether to impose certain sanctions against the illegal recipient of subsidies is basically attributable to the legislative person. It is doubtful whether the conclusion that the aforementioned additional collection can only be derived when considering the broad legislative discretion on the strength of administrative sanctions. This is the same in light of the purport of introducing the additional collection system as seen earlier.

Ultimately, insofar as the interpretation of the “amount already paid” under the instant provision as the entire amount of subsidies cannot be readily concluded to contravene the principle of proportionality, it shall be interpreted in accordance with the ordinary meaning of the text and text, and shall not be readily modified or limited to the interpretation.

(4) The Majority Opinion appears to have construed as a dynamic interpretation on the grounds that the other party to the disposition of additional collection under the instant provision is a farmer, etc. However, even if a farmer is a farmer, a reasonable sanction is required for a person who commits a false or unlawful act. In particular, in light of the purpose of the additional collection system as seen earlier, the scope of additional collection should not be limited to twice the amount of the unlawful receipt.

E. As seen earlier, in light of the language and text or legislative intent of the instant provision, the “amount already paid” as the criteria for additionally collecting twice the amount pursuant to the instant provision ought to be construed as the entire amount of subsidies paid with respect to all registered farmlands, and even if so, it cannot be deemed as contrary to the principle of proportionality, etc.

F. Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the portion exceeding KRW 3,050,820 (i.e., KRW 1,525,410 x twice) out of KRW 3,050,820 (i.e., KRW 1,525,410 x 2 times) on the ground that the amount to be additionally collected pursuant to the instant provision is not twice the entire amount of subsidies paid, but twice the amount of the subsidies wrongfully received (i.e., KRW 15,77,080 - KRW 5,656,80 - KRW 3,050,820) out of the instant disposition was unlawful.

In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the scope of additional collection under the instant provision, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

G. Therefore, the part of the lower judgment against the Defendant shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.

We dissent with the Majority Opinion.

Justices Jo Hee-de (Presiding Justice)