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.

The court's explanation of this case by the court of the first instance as to the plaintiff's assertion is identical to the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for supplement of the judgment as to the corresponding part of paragraph (2) below, and thus, citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of

(The grounds for appeal by the Plaintiff do not differ significantly from the assertion in the first instance trial, and the fact-finding and determination by the first instance court are deemed legitimate in view of the additional arguments and evidence presented in this court). The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant project team violated relevant provisions, such as Article 23 of the Subsidy Management Act (hereinafter “Subsidy Act”) by suspending the payment of subsidies to the Plaintiff at the Defendant’s initiative, even though the instant project team did not obtain approval on the business plan of the Ministry for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, a superior institution.

The main text of Article 23 of the Subsidy Act provides that "a subsidy program operator shall obtain approval from the head of the central government agency in order to change the details of a subsidy program or to change the distribution of expenses incurred in relation to a subsidy program due to a change in circumstances, and according to the overall purport of the statements and arguments in the evidence Nos. 11 and 12 of this Act, a local industry promotion project manual prepared by the Ministry for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries shall be confirmed by the Ordinance of the Ministry for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries after obtaining approval from the City/Do in relation to a change in the business plan, such as a change

However, around May 20, 2015, the management committee of the instant project team decided to temporarily suspend the Plaintiff’s subsidy payment prior to confirmation of the result of measures taken by the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety, etc. on Plaintiff’s fake I manufacture and sale suspicion, etc., is subject to the allocation of expenses incurred in the subsidy program and the details of the subsidy program under Article 23 of the Subsidy Act.