beta
Plaintiff, Appellant
Korea Trade Union Federation (Law Firm Geosung, Attorney Kang Won-il, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Defendant, appellant and appellant
The Minister of Labor;
Conclusion of Pleadings
September 15, 2006
The first instance judgment
Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2005Guhap29075 decided January 19, 2006
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1. Purport of claim
The Defendant’s decision to grant subsidies of KRW 2,957,04,315 against the Plaintiff on July 7, 2005 and the revocation of the decision to grant or order to return subsidies shall be revoked.
2. Purport of appeal
The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;
The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: “Around December 16, 2002,” which read “as of December 13, 2002,” which read “as of December 13, 2002,” which read “as of December 13, 2002,” which read “as of December 6, 2002,” which read “as of Article 2(a)(2) and (d)(2) below, is the same as the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance; thus, this Court shall accept it as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
[Supplementary Parts]
(8) The Plaintiff received a subsidy from the Defendant, and paid the service cost to the contractor, etc., as above, and the Central Labor Welfare Center was completed as scheduled and did not find any defects in the construction up to now.
[Supplementary Use]
(2) Defendant
In the process of receiving subsidies from the Defendant, the Plaintiff: (a) concealed the fact about the development fund, such as not notifying the Defendant of the special agreement to receive the development fund from the public corporation; and (b) did not make efforts to reduce the amount of construction cost; and (c) received part of the national subsidy granted for direct construction costs under the name of “development fund” and used it for indirect expenses incidental to the establishment of the welfare center; and (d) thus, it constitutes a case where the subsidies were granted by unlawful means as prescribed by the Act. Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful.
(2) Judgment in this case
In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff’s receipt of a subsidy constitutes a case where the Plaintiff received a reasonable amount of subsidy for a project eligible to receive a subsidy, and the Plaintiff did not report the details related to the development fund from the contractor, etc. upon receiving an application for subsidy to the Defendant, or did not make efforts to reduce the construction cost at the time of conclusion of the construction contract with the above company, and did not make efforts to use the subsidy in a way that the Plaintiff received the entire amount of the development fund in a transparent manner within the scope of the budget.
2. Conclusion
If so, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.
Judges Cho Jong-ok (Presiding Judge)