beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s reimbursement disposition of the fuel subsidy amounting to KRW 9,636,882 against the Plaintiff on June 25, 2014 exceeds KRW 4,206,469.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff is a trucking business operator who engages in the business of commercially transporting freight using B trucks (hereinafter “instant trucks”) with permission from the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport
On January 4, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) purchased oil at the D gas station located in the Cheongju-si, Cheongju-si, Cheongju-si, and (b) applied for a fuel subsidy of KRW 5,924, and received fuel subsidies in excess of 199 times from that time by March 1, 2014, the Plaintiff applied for a fuel subsidy of KRW 4,206,469, in excess of the fuel subsidies, as if he purchased 102.91 liter, even though the amount of oil actually purchased was 85.764 liter; (c) as the Plaintiff purchased the oil, he/she applied for a fuel subsidy of KRW 5,924.
B. On June 25, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposition to recover the full amount of fuel subsidies received by the Plaintiff in relation to the instant truck from KRW 9,636,882 (including KRW 4,206,469 of fuel subsidies that were paid excessively as above) pursuant to Article 44(3) of the Trucking Transport Business Act (hereinafter “ Trucking Transport Business Act”) and Article 29(1) of the former Regulations on the Management of Fuel Subsidies (amended by Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport Notice No. 2014-109, Mar. 10, 2014; hereinafter “the Regulations on the Management of Fuel Subsidies”).
(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). / [Grounds for recognition] The entry in Gap’s Evidence 1, 2, and Eul’s Evidence 1 (including branch numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 made the instant disposition to recover the full amount of the fuel subsidies paid in relation to the instant truck in accordance with Article 29(1) of the Management Regulations for Fuel Subsidies.
However, Article 29 (1) of the Family Subsidy Management Regulations does not have any delegation of superior laws and regulations, and there is no external binding force, and otherwise, the defendant is the plaintiff from the plaintiff.