1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation regarding this case is as follows: “Supreme Court Decision 2009Do8769 Decided Mar. 25, 2010” added “Supreme Court Decision 2013Do2500 Decided Nov. 14, 2013” to “Supreme Court Decision 201Do8769 Decided Mar. 25, 2010” in the fourth and fourth part of the judgment of the court of first instance; and, except for addition of the judgment mentioned in the second below, it is identical to the part on the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance (including related Acts and subordinate statutes), and thus, it is cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the

2 Additional Judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant’s revocation of the full amount of the subsidy granted from the Defendant was an abuse of discretion and is unlawful, in light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff used the subsidy granted from the Defendant for the instant project to use it in a liquid manure storage tank; (b) paid not less than the cost of the instant project by spending approximately KRW 45 million for the land purchase cost, access road construction cost, and ground construction cost; and (c) the Plaintiff disposes of the amount of livestock excreta generated from Goung-gun; and (d) the Plaintiff could not go bankrupt if the full amount

B. 1) Determination 1) In the event a subsidy program operator cancels a part of the revocation of the decision to grant subsidies on the ground that he/she was granted subsidies by false application or by other unlawful means, the scope of revocation should be individually determined by comprehensively taking into account the purpose and contents of the subsidy program, the motive behind the revocation of the decision to grant subsidies, the ratio of subsidies granted by improper means out of the total amount of subsidies, the ratio of subsidies granted, and the ratio of subsidies used in accordance with the conditions and contents thereof (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du1165, Jan. 28, 2005).