Seoul Central District Court 2013 Gohap92052 ( October 26, 2014)

The reason why the Defendant discontinued his/her business does not change the essential purpose, nature, etc. of the above subsidy as a claim prohibited from seizure.

The reason why the Defendant discontinued his/her business does not change the essential purpose, nature, etc. of the above subsidy as a claim prohibited from seizure.

Articles 48 and 52 of the Electric Utility Act, and Article 38 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act

Subsidy Management Act

2014Na2019897 Confirmation of Claim for Payment of Deposit Money

AAgu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Republic of Korea, BB,CC

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013Gahap92052 Decided May 23, 2014

October 24, 2014

November 21, 2014

1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. Defendant BB confirmed that the right to claim for withdrawal from the Seoul Central District Court 2013 Gold bullion**** the right to claim withdrawal from the OOO members deposited as the plaintiff.

1. Quotation of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;

This judgment is based on the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following matters to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is based on Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the

Additional Part

No. 6 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall add the following details to no more than 6 of the judgment:

"The plaintiff also asserts that since the nature of the claim for the subsidy of this case has already been closed on August 2012 after the defendantCC, which is the place of business subject to the grant of subsidy, has changed essentially in its nature as a result of its closure as of August 1, 2012, the plaintiff's assertion that the claim for the subsidy of this case should not be accepted and paid only between the defendant BB entrusted by the State, such as ordinary subsidy claims, and the defendant B should not be accepted and paid. However, the claim for this part of the claim cannot be accepted on the ground that the defendantCC closed the business for the reason that the defendantCC could not pay the subsidy of this case for an unexpected external reason, not for the reason that the public purpose regarding the establishment and operation of the power industry foundation fund

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant BB is unlawful and dismissed, and the plaintiff's claim against the defendant Republic of Korea and the defendantCC shall be dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the plaintiff's appeal against the defendants.