logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2015.09.16 2014구합3879
유가보조금전액환수처분취소
Text

1. On July 18, 2014, the Defendant exceeded KRW 2,96,464 in the redemption disposition of the fuel subsidy granted to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff entered into an entrustment contract with a limited partnership company Swel and B (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) with respect to the instant truck, and is a land owner who engages in the instant trucking transport business with a driver C, employing the driver C.

B. On January 25, 2013, the Plaintiff purchased light oil from the E station located in Cheongju-si, Cheongju-si, in which the actual quantity of light oil purchased was 182.271 liter, but he/she applied for a fuel subsidy in excess of the fuel purchase amount, and received an excess of the fuel subsidy corresponding to the fuel purchase amount which he/she purchased, as if he/she purchased 182.271 liter, as he/she purchased 235.15 liter, and from that time, applied for a fuel subsidy in excess of 2,96,464 won from February 19, 2014.

C. On July 18, 2014, the Defendant delegated the authority to support truck oil subsidies by the Daejeon Metropolitan City Mayor to the Plaintiff pursuant to Articles 44(3) and 44-2 of the former Trucking Transport Business Act (amended by Act No. 13382, Jun. 22, 2015; hereinafter “ Trucking Act”) and Article 29(1) of the former Regulation on the Management of Fuel Subsidies (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport No. 2014-109, Mar. 10, 2014; hereinafter “Rules on the Management of Fuel Subsidies”), the Defendant recovered the full amount of fuel subsidies that the Plaintiff received between January 25, 2013 and February 19, 2014 during the period from January 25, 2013 to February 19, 2014, and suspended the payment of fuel subsidies from KRW 29,213,830 (including excess fuel subsidies paid as above, 296,464.15).214

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition” only with respect to the recovery disposition of a fuel subsidy of KRW 9,213,830. [The grounds for recognition] did not dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2 (including a serial number), Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, and the entire pleadings.

arrow