The case holding that in a case where Gap corporation, which had its head office and factory in the metropolitan area, transferred its head office and factory to an industrial complex in the Young-gun area under the Special Act on Balanced National Development to an industrial complex in the Young-gun, and the State subsidized the State expenses to Jeonnam-do by providing support for the relocation of Eul company's head office and factory, and Jeonnam-do provided subsidies to the Young-gun in addition to the above State expenses, Young-gun provided subsidies to the Young-gun, and the Young-gun paid the above subsidies to Gap, and completed the registration of ownership transfer of factory sites in the industrial complex after the Gap paid the subsidies from Young-gun, and the Eul established a collateral security right on the above land without the approval of the head of central government agency, the business subject to the State-funded subsidy is the business that transferred Gap company's head office and factory to an industrial complex in the Young-gun area without the approval of the head of central government agency, and the Gap company constitutes an indirect subsidy program operator who provided the State-funded subsidy again in accordance with the purpose of granting the subsidies from Young-gun-gun-gun.

Article 2 of the Subsidy Management Act; Article 35(3)3 of the former Subsidy Management Act (Amended by Act No. 13931, Jan. 28, 2016); Article 19(1) of the Special Act on Balanced National Development

Young-gun (Attorney Kang Jong-ok, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

National Bank of Korea (Law Firm Sejong, Attorneys Kim So-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Gwangju High Court Decision 2015Na12269 decided August 26, 2016

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to Article 2 of the Subsidy Management Act (hereinafter “Subsidy Act”), the term “indirect subsidy program operator” refers to “a person who performs a business or project eligible for a subsidy” (Article 2 and 3), and “indirect subsidy program operator” refers to a person who performs a business or project eligible for a subsidy, without receiving any corresponding consideration, from a person other than the State, with all or some of the financial resources of the subsidy, for which the subsidy is granted (Article 4, 5, and 6), and “a subsidy recipient” refers to “a person who received a subsidy or indirect subsidy from a subsidy program operator or indirect subsidy program operator” (Article 8).

The main text of Article 35(3) of the former Subsidy Management Act (amended by Act No. 13931, Jan. 28, 2016; hereinafter “former Subsidy Act”) provides that “A subsidy program operator or indirect subsidy program operator shall not engage in any of the following acts with respect to important property without approval from the head of a central government agency even after the completion of the relevant subsidy program:

2. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, Defendant 1, Inc., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant 2”) with the head office and office of 00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,000,00,000,00,000,00,00,000,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,06,00,00,00.

3. On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant seeking cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the above rooting mortgage on the ground that the Defendant’s act of providing security against Alpha Korea was null and void pursuant to the main sentence of Article 35(3) of the former Subsidy Act by subrogation of Alpha Korea on the ground that the act of providing security against the instant land, which is an important property without approval from the head of a central government agency, is null and void pursuant to the main sentence of Article 35(3) of the former Subsidy Act.

4. However, examining the above facts in light of the relevant provisions, the business subject to the grant of the State subsidy is a business transferring the headquarters and factory of Alpha Korea to the industrial complex of this case within the Plaintiff’s jurisdiction, and Alpha wave Korea is an indirect subsidy program operator who performed the above business and received the State subsidy again according to the purpose of the grant. This cannot be viewed differently on the ground that the economic benefits from the grant of the State subsidy belong to Alpha Korea.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that Alpha Korea did not constitute an indirect subsidy program. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on indirect subsidy program operators and subsidy recipients under the main sentence of Article 35(3) of the former Subsidy Act, and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation contained in the grounds of appeal on this point

5. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jae-hyung (Presiding Justice)