1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff A Incorporated Partnership (hereinafter “Plaintiff Incorporated”) as a party is a legal entity that engaged in the instant business in the Jeonju-gunJ after receiving a decision to grant subsidies from Defendant Fullju-gun (hereinafter “instant business”). Plaintiffs B, C, D, E, F, and G are the former directors of the Plaintiff Company.

Defendant H is a public official belonging to Defendant M&A who was engaged in the business of this case.

B. (1) On May 30, 2014, Defendant Complete-gun revoked KRW 3,403,209,510 out of the amount of subsidies paid to the Plaintiff Corporation KRW 4,827,346,540 (hereinafter “instant revocation disposition”).

(2) Around July 2014, this Court attached the Plaintiffs’ property (hereinafter “instant attachment”) on the ground that the Plaintiffs did not implement the return of subsidies according to the instant disposition of revocation upon the application of the Defendant’s Republic of Korea.

3) Accordingly, on July 31, 2014, the Plaintiff corporation, etc. filed an administrative appeal against the head of the complete Gun seeking the revocation of the instant disposition under the Court 2014Guhap2192 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”). On December 23, 2015, the instant court rendered a judgment that “the instant disposition of revocation is revoked” on the ground that the Plaintiff corporation’s claim in the instant administrative litigation is one of the instant business among the grounds for the instant disposition of revocation asserted by the head of complete Gun. The only reason for illegal lease is recognized. The instant disposition of revocation is illegal on the sole ground that it exceeds the discretionary power.” The said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 7 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiffs' assertion

A. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion is that the plaintiff corporation can receive value-added tax by concluding the instant construction contract related to the business in the name of "the plaintiff corporation".