1. The Defendant’s KRW 32,692,040 as well as 5% per annum from January 1, 2017 to September 19, 2017 to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a farmer who directly cultivated Blue B from the end of 2011 to Nov. 2016, 201, on the land of the Jeonnam-gun (hereinafter “instant land”).

The Defendant sold the instant land to the Korea Rural Community Corporation around 2012, and the Plaintiff was unaware of such circumstances.

B. The government is operating a system for compensation direct payments and subsidies for business closure that support certain portions of price decline to the producers of certain items of agricultural products damaged by price decline due to the rapid increase in the import volume of agricultural products as a result of the implementation of free trade agreements, and that provide subsidies to the producers who wish to discontinue the business.

C. The Defendant was registered as the producer of the instant land, and the Defendant applied for subsidies for compensation for losses and subsidies for discontinuance of business, and received KRW 36,692,040 in total, around December 31, 2016.

The Defendant remitted KRW 6,00,000 to the Plaintiff around January 10, 2017.

E. At the end of May 2015, the Plaintiff installed a pipe of 2,000,000 won for the instant land, but did not collect as a disturbance of the Defendant.

(In fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1, 2, 5, and 7, each entry (including each number), and the inquiry result of the fact-finding on the Trank-gun, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion

A. Since the Plaintiff, alone, cultivated Bluos on the instant land, subsidies following the closure of business should be paid to the Plaintiff.

However, since this does not return it to the defendant, we seek restitution of unjust enrichment.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant together carried on the business, and cultivated Blue Ri on the instant land.

The defendant decided to waive closed-down subsidies and compensation subsidies for losses.

Therefore, since all of the instant subsidies for discontinuance of business should belong to the Defendant, it is not unjust enrichment.

3. Determination

A. The instant subsidies for preserving direct payments and subsidies for discontinuance of business are actually granted on the instant land.