1. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance except for the additional determination under Paragraph 2 of the same Article as to the allegations that the plaintiffs need to be newly admitted by this court, and thus, they are quoted as they are in accordance with

(The grounds for appeal by the plaintiff are different from the allegations in the first instance court. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of first instance, the findings of fact in the first instance and the judgment are justifiable). 2. Additional determination

A. The summary of the assertion is a subsidized project operator subject to the Act on the Management of Subsidies (hereinafter “Subsidy Act”) established as a rice processing site with a State’s loan or subsidy under Article 22 of the Grain Management Act.

Although the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, the Do Governor and the Mayor delegated by him/her have a duty to manage and supervise the financial status, operational ability, operator's career, etc. with respect to F, thereby resulting in the Plaintiffs' failure to receive money as stated in the “request amount” in the attached list.

B. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance court cited by this court, F merely was requested from the Republic of Korea to keep grain under government management from April 1, 2013 to March 31, 2016, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that F is a assistant business operator who performs business or business subject to subsidies, or who received subsidies from the State in relation to the purchase of the instant I.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion that the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs violated the obligation to manage and supervise the F in accordance with the Subsidy Act is without merit.

[Decree F is a subsidized business operator under the Subsidy Act, the Subsidy Act imposes a duty to manage and supervise only the use of the subsidy of the subsidized business operator and the property acquired thereby (Article 35 F of the Subsidy Act).