logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2019.07.24 2018구합103944
보조금반환청구
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 527,190,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from October 1, 2015 to June 8, 2018.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation established pursuant to Article 45 of the Energy Use Rationalization Act, which carries out projects such as rationalization of the energy utilization, development and distribution of new and renewable energy, and financing and support for collective energy supply projects, and the new and renewable energy center (hereinafter “instant center”) is an affiliated institution for the Plaintiff’s professional and efficient promotion of the use and distribution of new and renewable energy pursuant to Article 31 of the Act on the Promotion of the Development, Use and Diffusion of New and Renewable Energy

B. The Plaintiff, from around 200 to around 2020, established new and renewable energy sources, such as solar energy, solar energy, underground heat, small wind power, fuel cell, etc., in a house with the aim of disseminating one million unit of new and renewable energy from around 2009 to around 202, the Plaintiff is promoting a project to support part of the standard unit price as a subsidy by the State for the distribution of new and renewable energy supply project (hereinafter “new and renewable energy distribution support project” from around 2014) (hereinafter “instant project”). The instant center selected the “participating public enterprise’s participation” eligible for participation and application for subsidy based on the construction performance, corporate credit rating, technical personnel status, and ability management, and then grants the State subsidies to the owner of a new and renewable energy facility in cases where the public enterprise enters into a construction contract with the owner of a new and renewable energy facility.

C. The Defendant was designated as a public enterprise to participate in the geothermal heating System of the instant project and applied for the State subsidy, and the Defendant received a total of KRW 527,190,000 from March 2012 to July 2013 as the State subsidy of KRW 47 times. The fact is that the “C” of the instant project’s participation and the “C” of the operation without the eligibility to apply for a subsidy is the owner of the housing.

arrow