Jung-gun (Attorney Kim Jae-hwan, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Nong Bank Co., Ltd. and one other (Attorney Park Jong-ok, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

December 15, 2017

Gwangju District Court Decision 2016Da72843 Decided July 5, 2017

1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

3. The phrase “performance” in paragraph 1 of the order of the court of first instance shall be corrected to “Performance D”.

1. Purport of claim

A. As to the real estate listed in the separate list Nos. 1 and 2 to a clean farming association corporation, 1) Defendant Nonghyup Bank Co., Ltd., from among the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage completed on October 18, 2012 by receipt of No. 19202 on October 18, 2012, on January 29, 2016, excluding the partial subrogation of confirmed bonds as to the Defendant National Agricultural Cooperative Federation under the receipt of No. 2061 on February 3, 2016, 2) Defendant National Agricultural Cooperative Federation Co., Ltd., as to the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage completed on October 18, 2012 by receipt of No. 19202 on October 18, 2012, due to the repayment of partial subrogation of confirmed bonds to Defendant National Agricultural Cooperative Federation as to each of the registration procedures for cancellation of each part of the registration procedures for Defendant National Agricultural Cooperative Federation.

B. As to the real estate listed in the separate list Nos. 3 and 4 to the Clean Agricultural Cooperative Association; 1) Defendant Nonghyup Incorporated Co., Ltd.: (a) out of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage completed on July 1, 2013 as the receipt of No. 11991 on July 1, 2013; (b) on January 29, 2016, the part excluding the part partially transferred to Defendant National Agricultural Cooperative Federation under the receipt of No. 2061 on February 3, 2016 of the same registry office; (c) on the registration of the establishment of a new mortgage completed on July 1, 2013 as the receipt of No. 1191 on January 29, 2016, the Defendant National Agricultural Cooperative Federation transferred part of the registration procedure to Defendant National Agricultural Cooperative Federation as the receipt of partial subrogation of final claim on February 3, 2016.

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the Defendants in the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and all of the Plaintiff’s claims against the Defendants corresponding to the revocation part are dismissed.

1. Scope of the judgment of this court;

In the first instance court, the Plaintiff sought implementation of the procedure for registration of cancellation of each registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage in the name of the Defendants as to the real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 through 4, and the court of first instance accepted each registration of cancellation of each registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage in the name of the Defendants as to the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 3 and No. 4, and dismissed each registration of cancellation of each registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage in the name of the Defendants as to the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 and No. 2. The Defendants appealed only against this, the subject of the judgment of this court is limited to the respective claims

2. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: “The application of Article 35(3) of the Subsidy Act to Article 35(3)” between the first instance court’s first instance court’s first instance court’s first instance court’s second instance judgment from 6th to 19th court’s second instance court’s second instance judgment; and therefore, it is citing it as is by the main text of

Article 35(3) of the Subsidy Act

In full view of the following circumstances recognized by the evidence Nos. 4, 6, and 13, the construction of the building of this case by a clean farming association corporation with an indirect subsidy from the Plaintiff constitutes an indirect subsidy program, and ultimately, a clean farming association falls under an indirect subsidy program for a person who implements an indirect subsidy program.

① Article 2 Subparag. 4 of the Subsidy Act provides, “Indirect subsidies means benefits that are granted by any person other than the State without receiving any reasonable consideration for the purpose of granting subsidies, with all or part of the financial resources.” Subparagraph 5 of Article 2 provides, “Indirect subsidies” refers to affairs or projects that are subject to the grant of indirect subsidies, and subparagraph 6 provides, “Indirect subsidies” refers to persons who implement indirect subsidies. However, a subsidy program that is subject to the grant of the instant subsidy is a project that is implemented as part of the support project for the industrialization of Traditional Fent Foods.” However, a subsidy program that is subject to the grant of the instant subsidy is a project for the modernization of manufacturing facilities (a processing plant extension and automatic packaging machine; a clean farming association is a processing plant extension and automatic packaging machine; and a clean farming association is a person who implements a project for the extension of a factory and automatic packaging of the instant building, such as construction of the instant building

② For the instant subsidized project, the State granted subsidies of KRW 200 million to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff granted subsidies of KRW 250,000,000,000,000,000 to the said State subsidies to a clean farming association, thereby having a clean farming association directly implement the instant subsidized project. As such, the subsidized project operator of the instant subsidized project is interesting group, and the indirect subsidy program operator is a clean farming association.

③ The subsidy of this case was promoted as part of the “Support Project for the Complex Industrialization of Agricultural and Fishing Villages” by the Ministry for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. The Guidelines for the Support Project for Complex of Resources in Agricultural Villages (Evidence A No. 13) shall be subject to deliberation by the Si/Gun/Gu, and the Si/Gun/Gu shall take necessary measures and report the results if the “Support Project operator” uses the subsidy in violation of the statutes

④ The Plaintiff’s written request for subsidy grant or clean farming association is indicated as a subsidy business operator.

⑤ The instant decision on the grant of a subsidy (No. 4-2) provides for the obligations of a clean agricultural association corporation with respect to the terms and conditions of the subsidy granted in relation to the “Prohibition of Use for Other Purposes,” “Modification, etc. of the Details of a subsidy program,” and “report on the performance of a subsidy program, etc.,” which is similar to the obligations granted to indirect subsidy program operators in Articles 22 (Prohibition of Use for Other Purposes), 23 (Change, etc. of the Details of a subsidy program) and 27 (Reporting on Performance of a subsidy program

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants of this case against the defendants is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit, but the part of the judgment of the court of first instance "performance" in Paragraph 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance is obvious that it is a clerical error of "performance load", and it is so decided as per Disposition by the court below

[Attachment]

Judges Lee Jae-chul (Presiding Judge)