logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2020.03.26 2019누56540
부정수급액 및 추가징수액 반환명령 취소청구
Text

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.

Reasons

The grounds alleged by the plaintiff in the trial while filing an appeal by the court of first instance are not significantly different from the contents alleged by the plaintiff in the court of first instance, and the judgment of the court of first instance dismissing the plaintiff's claim even if the evidence submitted by the court of first instance is re-examined together with the plaintiff

Therefore, the reasoning for this Court regarding this case is that the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the modification of the written judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, this Court shall accept it in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act

[Revision] Part of the judgment of the court of first instance is written as follows: Part 6 to 8 of the judgment of the court of first instance.

1) The non-existence of the grounds for disposition B merely assisted the Plaintiff’s employees to undergo online lectures and evaluations, and did not act on behalf of the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have received subsidies by fraud or other improper means. Therefore, the Plaintiff believed that the Plaintiff was able to conduct postal training with B’s explanation and with his assistant’s aid; the Plaintiff paid the full amount of the training expenses and incurred monetary damages only by receiving a refund of only 80% of the training expenses of the workers who completed the training course; and whether the Plaintiff is entitled to additional collection of the same amount exceeding the amount of the training expenses. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff cannot be seen as abusing discretion, imposing the full amount of additional collection of the same amount exceeding the amount of the training expenses to be recovered is unjust.

Part 3 of the judgment of the first instance court is "C. Judgment" in Part 11 of the judgment of the third instance.

The following writing boxes shall be added between the second and the last sentence in the judgment of the first instance.

In an administrative litigation to which the provisions of the Civil Procedure Act apply.

arrow