logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.11.24 2015누49117
보조금 반환명령 무효 확인
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is 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.

Reasons

1. The reason why this part of the disposition is used by the court is as stated in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. 1) The purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the instant disposition was rendered against C Infant Care Center, a facility without legal personality, even though the Plaintiff was a person operating C Infant Care Center, 65 children, and the Defendant was a person operating C Infant Care Center, and thus, the instant disposition is null and void due to serious and obvious defects. 2) The Plaintiff, as stated in the detailed details of the return of the instant disposition, partially executed expenses for the management and operation of the instant disposition as the cost for the maintenance and repair of the facilities and used part of the clothes as the cost for charging transportation cards, but the instant disposition was rendered by the Defendant even though such use was a lawful use based on social welfare foundation’s financial and accounting rules, and was not used for

B. Grounds for use by the court in this part of the relevant statutes are 3.B. of the first instance judgment.

Since it is the same as the statement in the claim, it is cited by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

C. 1) The determination of the first argument is based on the first argument that the Plaintiff reported the establishment of a facility with the aim of providing the Defendant with protection, rearing, job training, and self-reliance support services, which is one of the child welfare facilities, to the Defendant, and operated C Infant Care Center with subsidies from the Defendant.

According to Article 23 of the Enforcement Rule of the Child Welfare Act, the reported matters include matters concerning the reporter, such as corporation, the name of the child welfare facility, the head of the child welfare facility, and the quota, and if the reported matters are modified, the report on modification shall be made.

Article 31 of the former Child Welfare Act, which was enforced at the time of the instant disposition, is stipulated.

arrow