(영문) 서울행정법원 2018.4.13. 선고 2017구합66169 판결

The plaintiff A shall be the F City Mayor from July 1, 2002 to February 24, 2010; the plaintiff B shall be the F City Agricultural Technology Center from March 3, 2005 to July 13, 2006; the plaintiff C shall be the head of the F City Agricultural Technology Center G from March 3, 2005 to July 13, 2006; the plaintiff D shall be the head of the F City Agricultural Technology Center G from March 11, 2005 to July 31, 2007; the plaintiff E shall be the head of the F City Agricultural Technology Center G and special purpose crops; the plaintiff's work as the F City Technology Center and rural community instructors; the plaintiff C shall work as 200 million won from March 2, 2004 to January 17, 2010; the local government subsidy of 200 million won to KRW 400,000,000,00 won (the local government subsidy of 203 billion).

(b) Selection of persons eligible for subsidies;

1) After selecting the F market as the supervising agency for the instant project, the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry notified the F market Mayor of the F market at the end of December 2003 to the end of early January 2004 through the Jeonnam-do Governor, and notified the F market Mayor of the foregoing, the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry selected a business operator who will implement the instant project in accordance with the Agricultural and Forestry Project Implementation Guidelines in 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the “Implementation Guidelines for the instant project”). The F City constituted the H creation promotion committee on January 20, 2004.

2) On February 10, 2004, I submitted, under the name of the J (Representative I) at F city, an application for a project with the content of establishing a vinyl house with a size of 12,000 square meters in the instant project site.

3) On February 17, 2004, the Sub-Council on Agriculture and Forestry Council of F City decided to select the J as a business operator of the instant project. On February 18, 2004, the Sub-Council on Agricultural Technology Center G of F City notified on February 18, 2004 that the J was appointed as a business operator by J.

(c)the primary grant of subsidies;

1) On April 14, 2004, under the judgment that I would be more favorable to the application of subsidies to carry out the instant project in the name of the farming association corporation, K Farming Corporation (hereinafter “instant corporation”) was established.

2) On April 14, 2004, Plaintiff A notified that it was decided to grant subsidies of KRW 1.242 billion to the instant legal entity (i.e., State expenses of KRW 745.2 million + Si expenses of KRW 496.8 million) to the F market.

3) The project implementation guidelines of this case provide that the Si/Gun, etc. shall first execute the funds for the implementation of the project, confirm the performance of the project by their own contributions, and then execute the subsidy according to the base price. As to the F market on May 12, 2004, I provided 458,659,093 won for material costs, such as the distribution of liquid fish plantation, and 772,618,307 won for construction and material costs to M& Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “M”), which is the contractor on May 2, 2004, and applied for the subsidy along with the tax invoice. F market provided 307,819,350 won for the corporation of this case on May 17, 2004 (i.e., the subsidy of this case 17, 307,350 won (i.e., the subsidy of this case).

(d)the second subsidy.

On February 28, 2006, I paid 1,08,041,70 won, N 906,308,938 won, and 468,204,154 won, and 2,462,554,792 won, to the F Doggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg.

E. The progress of the relevant criminal trial

1) "I" on August 31, 2006 is the same as that the corporation of this case paid the amount of self-paid, although it did not actually paid the amount of self-paid, and as if the facilities necessary for the project of this case were completed, I applied for the payment of the first and second subsidies from F City which is aware of such fact by pretending to have paid the amount of self-paid, and applying for the payment of the first and second subsidies.

1,231,277,40 won was received and obtained through deception, and the above judgment was finalized as it is, after being sentenced to three years of imprisonment on December 20, 2006, by the Gwangju District Court 2006Da313, which was prosecuted on the charge of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), and after being sentenced to the conviction of three years of imprisonment on December 20, 2006.

2) On June 8, 2007, Plaintiff B, C, D, and E conspired with P on the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry No. 1183, Dec. 17, 2004; hereinafter referred to as the "Rules on the Implementation of Agricultural and Forestry") 2 of the former Guidelines for the Implementation of the Projects and the former Rules on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry No. 1183, Dec. 17, 2004; hereinafter referred to as the "Rules on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes") were entirely unable to meet the corporate qualification requirements set forth in [Attachment 3] of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (hereinafter referred to as the "Requirements for the Support of Agricultural and Fisheries"), and the judgment of the court of appeal 200 to suggest that the first subsidy was not paid to the corporation in violation of the above provision.

3) On July 30, 2007, Plaintiff A conspired with P and Plaintiff E to obtain all corporate qualification requirements provided for in the project implementation guidelines of this case and the requirements for the support of the agricultural corporation of this case. Although the Plaintiff failed to pay self-paid charges, Plaintiff A, while being aware of the fact that the Plaintiff applied for subsidies with false tax invoices, provided the instant corporation with the primary subsidy, thereby obtaining profits equivalent to the amount of the instant corporation and causing damages equivalent to the same amount at the State and F. Plaintiff A conspired with Plaintiff B, C, D, and E, the instant corporation did not meet the corporate qualification requirements provided for in the project implementation guidelines of this case and the requirements for the support of the agricultural corporation of this case, and the judgment of the appellate court was reversed and sentenced to the judgment of 208 of the judgment of the first instance court on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes of this case (the judgment of the appellate court of this case was reversed and sentenced to 2008 of the judgment of the first instance court of this case).

(f) An order to reimburse the F market;

On January 24, 2011, the F market ordered the Plaintiffs to pay KRW 175,893,100 for each of the following reasons: (a) based on Articles 4(1), 4(4), and 6(1) of the Act on Liability of Accounting Personnel, Etc. (hereinafter “Act”), on the ground that the instant corporation did not meet the business requirements prescribed in the instant project implementation guidelines, etc. while promoting the instant project, the F market, knowing that the instant corporation did not meet the business requirements prescribed in the instant project implementation guidelines, etc.; and (b) the compensation order was served on each of the Plaintiffs at F. (hereinafter “instant compensation order”); and (c) the compensation order was served accordingly on each of the Plaintiffs.

G. The defendant's decision of compensation or retrial

1) On July 8, 201, the Plaintiffs filed a petition for adjudication as to whether the Defendant is liable for compensation pursuant to Article 6(3) of the Accounting Personnel Liability Act on the grounds that the construction corresponding to the instant secondary subsidy was actually carried out by the Defendant, and that no property damage was incurred at the State and F.

2) In accordance with Article 4(1) and (4) of the Act on Liability of Accounting Personnel on May 15, 2014, the Defendant considers the ratio of liability of Plaintiff E, D, C, B, and A as the ratio of liability 1:1:2:5, and is responsible for compensating for the same amount as indicated below.

(hereinafter referred to as "the compensation award of this case") made a determination on the contents of this case.

A person shall be appointed.

3) Around June 2014, the Plaintiffs filed a petition for review with the purport that, under Article 36(1) of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act, the extinctive prescription of the indemnity claim was completed against the Defendant. The Plaintiffs were not accounting officials for the portion of the State subsidy out of the instant secondary subsidy, but for violation of the Act, there was no intentional or gross negligence, and since subsidies were used for the instant business, there was no cause for reduction or exemption of the amount of the reimbursement, and thus, they would not incur any damage from the payment of the subsidy. The Defendant filed a petition for review with the intent to seek the cancellation of the instant compensation decision or reduction or exemption of the amount of the reimbursement. On March 2, 2017, the extinctive prescription of the State subsidy out of the amount of the indemnities out of the instant secondary subsidy was interrupted from February 28, 2006, which was five years after the date the second subsidy was paid, and the Plaintiffs were not aware of or could not have been able to obtain the right to use the pertinent subsidy under Article 2 of the Accounting Personnel Act.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6, 15 through 18, Eul evidence 1, 2 and 4 (each number is included; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

For the following reasons, the instant disposition should be revoked as it is unlawful.

1) The project cost of the instant project consists of national expenses, expenses of Jeonnam-do, and expenses to be borne by the entrepreneurs. The subject liable for compensation under the Act on Liability of Accounting Personnel in relation to the above national expenses and Do expenses is the accounting officials of the State and the accounting officials of Jeonnam-do. The Plaintiffs are only the accounting officials of the State in relation to Si/Gun expenses, and thus, are not liable for compensation related to the instant project (hereinafter referred to as “the instant note”).

2) In order for the instant corporation to receive the second subsidy, the instant corporation shall meet the corporate qualification requirements stipulated in the requirements for the instant agricultural corporation’s support, and should have secured its business site and disbursed its own contributions in accordance with the project implementation guidelines in the instant case. At the time of the instant secondary subsidy payment, the instant corporation did not meet all the above requirements, but the Plaintiffs cannot be deemed to have had intention or gross negligence on the grounds as follows. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs are not liable for compensation related to the instant project.

A) Although the instant legal entity failed to meet some corporate qualification requirements, the instant legal entity was in progress at the time of the instant secondary subsidy payment to the extent of 80%, and thus, the Plaintiffs, as the Plaintiffs, will provide active administration to ensure the successful completion of the business by supplementing inadequate requirements.

No subsidy shall be granted with the intent to cause damage to the State or a local government (hereinafter referred to as the "State of this case")

B) At the time of filing a business application, the instant corporation entered into a sales contract for 15 parcels out of total 19 parcels of the project site, and paid down payment of KRW 69 million, and the rest of the four parcels of land was approved to use the land. Since some of the problems have been corrected, the Plaintiffs had no choice but to believe that the instant corporation had secured the project site (hereinafter referred to as the “instant Chapter”).

C) The fact that the tax invoices, etc. submitted by the instant corporation as evidence of the execution of self-paid charges were false was revealed in the course of the investigation conducted after the instant secondary subsidy payment. Although I, the representative of the instant corporation, was in bad credit standing, the instant project was conducted by up to 80%, a policy decision was made that the instant project may be fully completed in consideration of the public interest of the project (hereinafter referred to as the “head of the instant case”).

D) The Plaintiffs merely believe the protocol of completion inspection prepared by public officials specialized in the construction field, and thus cannot be deemed as having intention or gross negligence related to the completion of a facility (hereinafter “instant assertion”).

E) Since the authority to decide the revocation of the secondary subsidy at the time of the instant grant was not the FF market price, but the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry or the Jeonnam-do Governor, the Plaintiffs, who are public officials of the FF, paid the instant secondary subsidy without the revocation of the grant, cannot be deemed to have intentionally or by gross negligence (hereinafter referred to as the “instant Chapter 6”).

3) Subsidies are not aimed at the return. The second subsidy of this case is used for the business of this case and its payment purpose is achieved, so it cannot be deemed that damage was inflicted on the State, etc., and even if damage was inflicted on household affairs, only part of the amount equivalent to the second subsidy of this case should be recognized as the amount of damage in consideration of the aforementioned circumstances. In addition, the part where the damage is recovered due to the sale of the business site of this case, etc., shall be deducted from the amount of damage (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "

4) The Plaintiffs’ failure to fully or partially reduce or exempt the amount of compensation, despite the existence of grounds for reduction or exemption under subparagraphs 1 and 2 of Article 5 of the Act on Liability of Accounting Personnel (hereinafter “instant claim”) is unlawful (hereinafter “instant claim”).

5) The claim against the Plaintiffs was extinguished by prescription from February 28, 2006, when the period of extinctive prescription under the National Finance Act, from February 28, 2006, which was five years after the date on which the second subsidy was paid. The FM does not have the authority to issue an order to compensate for the part of the State and Do subsidies out of the second subsidy, and the FM does not have the effect of suspending extinctive prescription under Article 6(5) of the Act on Liability of Accounting Personnel (hereinafter “instant order”).

B. Key issue of the instant case

The main issue of the instant case is whether or not the liability for compensation under the Accounting Personnel Liability Act is recognized.

① Whether the Plaintiffs constitute accounting personnel under the Act on Liability of Accounting Personnel in relation to the instant business, ① the requirements for a business operator’s corporate qualification among the requirements for granting subsidies, requirements for securing business sites, requirements for the burden of self-charges, and requirements for the completion of a facility, whether the Plaintiffs committed intentional or gross negligence on the violation of the Act, and whether the loss occurred or not, ② whether the calculation of the amount of damage is lawful, ③ whether the amount of compensation is reduced or exempted, ④ whether the FF Mayor has the authority to issue a compensation order for the second subsidy in relation to the interruption

C. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

D. Determination on issues

1) Whether the Plaintiffs constitute accounting personnel under the Accounting Personnel Liability Act in relation to the instant business

A) Article 2 Subparag. 1(a), 2(a), and 4 of the Accounting Personnel Liability Act provides that the finance officer who executes the national accounting affairs pursuant to the statutes that stipulate the matters related to the national budget and accounting, such as the National Finance Act, the National Accounting Act, the National Accounting Act, and the National Treasury Management Act, the finance officer who executes the local government’s accounting affairs in accordance with the statutes that stipulate the matters related to the local government’s budget and accounting, and the finance officer who executes the local government’s accounting affairs and each of its assistants, shall be an accounting officer

B) First, we examine whether the plaintiffs are financial officers and their assistants executing national accounting affairs in relation to the part of the subsidies for the instant project.

Article 38 of the former Act on the Budgeting and Management of Subsidies (amended by Act No. 10898, Jul. 25, 201; hereinafter referred to as the "former Subsidy Act") and Article 17 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Budgeting and Management of Subsidies (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23264, Oct. 26, 201; hereinafter referred to as the "former Enforcement Decree of the Subsidy Act") provide that the head of a central government agency may delegate affairs such as the decision to grant subsidies and the revocation of the decision to grant subsidies and the disposition on the return of subsidies to the head of a local government. According to the former Framework Act on the Execution Management of Agricultural and Fisheries Funds (amended by Act No. 2898, Feb. 23, 2012; hereinafter referred to as the "former Subsidy Act"), Article 15(4) and Article 16(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Subsidy Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23264, Oct. 26, 2011>

In accordance with the relevant provisions of Article 38 of the former Subsidy Act and Article 17 (1) through (6) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the head of a Si/Gun/Gu shall delegate the affairs concerning the project cost approval, execution, and settlement of accounts to the Mayor/Do Governor. The project funds shall be executed first, and after the Si/Gun, etc. confirms the project performance based on self-paid charges, according to the ratio set out in the project implementation guidelines. The head of a Si/Gun shall be responsible for the execution and settlement of the project cost and the subsidy granted according to the application for the subsidy shall be paid immediately to the representative of the project subject. The head of a Si/Gun shall illegally use the

Not only recovery but also suspension of subsidy for projects for one to five years depending on the size of the amount (see Article 16 of the Framework Regulations on the Management of Execution of Agricultural and Forestry Project Funds).

According to the above statutes and relevant regulations, the F market was delegated by the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry or the Jeonnam Do governor with the authority to execute, settle, and recover the subsidy with respect to the part of the national subsidy of the instant project.

Meanwhile, according to Article 3(1)3 and (3) of the Financial Accounting Rules in F City and Article 4(1) [Attachment] of the F City Rules, Plaintiff A is a financial commissioner in F City, and the rest of Plaintiffs are the assistants of Plaintiff A, a financial commissioner.

Thus, when the FF Mayor exercises the authority to execute, settle, and recover the subsidy (state expenses) delegated by the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry or the Do Governor, the plaintiffs shall be deemed as the finance officer who executes the financial affairs and his assistant, who is in charge of accounting affairs under the Act on the Liability of Accounting Personnel.

C) Next, we examine whether the plaintiffs' subsidy for the instant project constitutes a finance officer who executes the accounting affairs of local governments in relation to the local non-expenses part of the subsidy for the instant project and its assistant.

On April 14, 2004, Plaintiff A notified that the grant of the subsidy of KRW 1.2 billion to the instant corporation (i.e., the State expense of KRW 745.2 million + Si expense of KRW 49.68 million) was decided. Of the instant primary subsidy paid to the instant corporation, the Si expense of KRW 123,127,740 was decided, and the fact that among the instant secondary subsidies paid to the instant corporation, the Si expense of KRW 496.8 million was based on the aforementioned disposition.

Therefore, among the subsidies for the instant project, the local subsidy is F City City Mayor. As seen earlier, Plaintiff A is the financial commissioner of F City, and the rest of Plaintiffs falls under Plaintiff A’s assistant, who is the financial commissioner, and the Plaintiffs are the financial commissioner and its assistant executing the relevant accounting affairs in relation to the project cost of the instant project, the Plaintiffs are the financial commissioner and its assistant who are responsible for accounting affairs under the Accounting Personnel Liability Act.

D) Accordingly, the plaintiffs' chief executive officer of this case is without merit.

2) Whether there was intention or gross negligence on the part of the plaintiffs as to the violation of statutes.

A) Details of the laws and regulations and relevant regulations to be complied with in the instant secondary subsidy payment

The guidelines for the implementation of the project in this case shall include the ability to bear an amount equivalent to the self-charge (1.242 million won) at the time of the application for the project, and the project site in this case shall be already secured separately from the ability to bear self-charge. The requirements for the support of the agricultural corporation in this case, namely, the total amount of contributions shall be at least KRW 100 million, and the corporation primarily responsible for the production shall invest at least 50 percent of its total contributions in kind (farmland, facilities, etc.), which shall be at least 1.2 billion won, and the corporation shall secure at least the self-charge (1.242 billion won), including contributions, for at least five households, and shall have at least one year of operation after its establishment, and it shall be thoroughly verified whether there is a disqualified person among the members of the corporation or a disguised person's personal project, and shall meet the requirements for the implementation of the project in this case, which shall be selected by the project execution entity and shall be paid at the ratio of the project performance.

B) Facts of recognition

(1) The details of the instant primary subsidy payment

(A) On April 14, 2004, I established the instant legal entity. At the time, the amount of the instant legal entity’s investment is KRW 50 million, and the amount of KRW 50 million was paid in full in cash and was not paid in kind, and KRW 50 million was considerably short of KRW 1.24 billion, which is to be secured by the business entity. Five members of the instant legal entity were not comprised of five or more households due to I, I’s wife, type, and wife, etc., but did not meet the project implementation guidelines and the requirements for corporate qualification of the agricultural legal entity as provided for in the requirements for support of the instant legal entity, since there was no operational performance for more than one year after the establishment of the legal entity.

(B) Around that time, the officials in charge of F City including Plaintiff E and P did not review whether the business operator should either cancel the selection of the business operator or request the business operator to supplement the new requirements when the business operator is changed to the corporation in this case in J. On April 14, 2004, the department in charge of F City G was approved by Plaintiff E, team leader P, division Q, agricultural production technology R, and deputy Mayor after the review of Plaintiff E, team leader P, division Q, agricultural production technology R, and deputy Mayor, and notified the corporation in this case that the business subsidy of this case was decided.

(C) On April 16, 2004, I selected M as a construction company, such as a vinyl house, etc. for the instant project by means of a designated bid. On April 17, 2004, I entered into a construction contract with the instant corporation that it awarded a contract for all of the construction works for the instant project to M in KRW 2,462,54,80, and received confirmation from G and team leader P on the same day.

(D) On April 24, 2004, I requested G to grant subsidies equivalent to the enhancement of the project of this case to G in F City. G and public officials were selected as business operators and refused to apply for subsidies for non-payment only one week from the time when the contract was concluded.

(E) On May 10, 2004, M applied for an inspection of the completed portion of construction on the premise that the entire progress of construction works was 50%. On May 12, 2004, M applied for the issuance of subsidies with false tax invoices indicating the payment of KRW 1,231,27,40,00 as the cost of materials, such as a large-amount distribution in L on April 4, 2004, although not having any fact that he had paid the F viewing G and office expenses, M applied for the provision of subsidies on May 12, 2004.

(F) On May 12, 2004, Plaintiff E, a working-level employee, visited the site of the instant project site to the extent corresponding to the details stated in the application form for inspection of completed on May 10, 2004. After confirming the fact, the construction was conducted to the extent consistent with G and E’s request for inspection of completedness. After adding up only the amount stated in the tax invoice submitted, and not taking measures to verify authenticity. In particular, any of the relevant public officials, either of the relevant public officials, ordered the instant construction project to M, and paid the construction cost, did not verify the reason why the tax invoice as stated in I was submitted.

(G) On May 17, 2004, FF provided the primary subsidy to the instant legal entity in accordance with the application for the subsidy already submitted.

(2) Suspension of the instant project and subsequent measures

(A) Since the occurrence of patients with symptoms of disease following this in the vicinity of the closed metal mine in Gyeongnam, the F citizens' interest in the mining damage is high, and the F City/Do media companies should also implement the mining damage prevention project from June 10, 2004, and the project site in this case began to report to the effect that the project site in this case should also be carried out, while illegally reclaiming farmland with the plaintiff A and is not taking appropriate measures to carry out the project in this case. From June 28, 2004, the F City Council began to raise the same suspicion, such as investigating the site of the project site in this case from June 28, 2004.

(B) On July 27, 2004, F City G notified the instant corporation to temporarily suspend construction on the ground that the instant corporation was raising suspicions at F City Council, etc. After that, F City G had part of the instant corporation that failed to meet the requirements for support for the agricultural corporation on August 13, 2004, and it is unclear whether the instant project site is secured, and the data on self-paid expenses also need to be supplemented for the reasons that the details of execution cannot be verified transparently. On the same day, F City G asked the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry as to whether the instant corporation is eligible for agricultural and forestry project subsidies, and from the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry on August 20, 2004, the corporation asked the Ministry of Environment to the effect that the instant corporation is not eligible for agricultural and forestry project subsidies. In addition, on the other hand, on G and F City, whether the instant project should undergo consultation with the Ministry of Environment, and on January 10, 2005, it should undergo an environmental review by the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Environment.

(C) From December 10, 2004 to January 12, 2005, the planning and audit office conducted an audit to confirm all the issues of the project of this case, and on January 12, 2005, the Plaintiff A reported and obtained approval on the audit results of “the audit results of UU mine and H creation” to the Plaintiff on January 12, 2005. In order to be selected as the operator of the project of this case, the project site should be secured in advance. The instant corporation failed to submit data on the registration of ownership transfer or land use approval or lease. The changed corporation failed to meet the requirements on the support requirements for the agricultural corporation of this case. Since the project site of this case was subject to mining damage prevention, it stated that consultation with the relevant administrative agency should be conducted, and that the relevant public official should be subject to disciplinary action against the Plaintiff, including G and E, on January 12, 2006. After the F disciplinary procedure, the report neglected the relevant measures against the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff related public official on the ground of work process.

(D) Plaintiff D, the head of the F City G and the team, was a public official of the same division, who was in full charge of the administrative affairs on a daily basis, and most important official documents were prepared. around April 2005, Plaintiff D prepared a report on subsequent measures for the results of self-audit in the form that the public official in charge may individually state his opinion on the progress of the project in this case. In addition to the Plaintiff E’s opinion that the project should be modified and promoted because it is contrary to relevant laws and regulations, and the Plaintiff E’s opinion that the project in this case should be carried out on on the condition that the problem is resolved, the head of the division, after obtaining the approval of the Plaintiff C, the head of the division. Plaintiff B, without stating the opinion of the public official in charge, failed to prepare a report in the instant project site in the form that the public official in charge could keep the plastic greenhouse in the form of selecting a proposal to interpret it.

(E) On April 22, 2005, Plaintiff D, after reviewing the follow-up measures for the results of self-audit conducted by Plaintiff B on the instant project site, prepared a report stating a plan to implement the mining damage prevention and a plan to implement the mining damage prevention after moving the said plastic house to the said plastic house, and submitted the report to Plaintiff A via Plaintiff E and Plaintiff C, and ordered the Plaintiff to implement a plan to maintain the plastic house from Plaintiff A around that time. The said report stated that the instant corporation failed to meet the requirements for agricultural and forestry project support, failed to secure the site for the project, and failed to submit data to verify whether the self-inspection was properly executed.

(F) On May 30, 2005, Plaintiff D prepared a report on the “H project promotion issues and countermeasures” by comprehensively arranging the problems regarding the instant project through consultation with Plaintiff E, and received approval by reporting it to Plaintiff B and A. The above report contains the content that the instant corporation failed to meet the requirements for the support of the agricultural corporation of this case, and not only failed to secure ownership regarding the instant project site, but also some of them are likely to secure the project site within the time when the auction is in progress. The F City’s request did not submit the data on the execution details of the self-paid charges, and continuously demanded the payment of the material price from N who supplied the material, and the illegal reclamation of the light also did not supplement the defect. Thus, it was reasonable to recover the subsidy if the subsidy has not been supplemented by June 15, 2005.

(G) From June 13, 2005 to August 5, 2005, the Defendant audited 145 local governments across the country including Busan Metropolitan City, etc. As part of the overall inspection of the budget operation status, the Defendant’s Inspector V, as part of the audit of the overall budget operation status of local governments, audited the instant project to the extent necessary to audit and inspect the budget execution status mainly with respect to F City from June 27, 2005 to July 8, 2005. It was pointed out that it was erroneous that the Defendant failed to file a complaint on the arbitrary reclamation of the drainage of the instant project site at the time of the inspection.

(h) On July 14, 2005, G division asked the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry about whether the pertinent business operator secure ownership in the business site. On July 15, 2005, the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry sent a reply to the effect that it is possible to lease part of the land, but it is necessary to conduct a follow-up management, such as registering the right of lease in the name of the business operator for the prevention of privatization.

(i) Around that time, the fact that the Plaintiff was a person with bad credit standing was widely known through the local media, etc., and no supplementary measure was taken on the requirements of the business operator involved between May 30, 2005 and July 18, 2005. The Plaintiff A appeared at the plenary session on July 18, 2005 and did not review the corporate requirements in the process of selecting the business operator of the instant case without explaining such problems. However, considering various circumstances such as mining damage prevention, the Plaintiff expressed his opinion that continuing the business of the instant corporation is consistent with the public interest.

(j) During the period from May 9, 2005 to November 30 of the same year, the Do governor sent a public notice to the effect that the FF would promptly establish measures to cope with the issues, etc. of the instant project and encourage the FF to complete the project. On December 22, 2005, the FF City Council discussed the organization of a special committee for the investigation of administrative affairs related to the instant development project at the plenary session, but it was rejected in light of the Plaintiff’s opinion, etc. that it is desirable to proceed with the instant project more than the cancellation of the project in public interest.

(3) The details of the instant secondary subsidy payment

(A) On December 2005, from January 2006 to January 2006, Plaintiff B received a request from the instant corporation to meet W, which supplied materials related to quantitative cultivation to the instant corporation, or was not paid the said amount by the instant corporation. Accordingly, the Plaintiff B responded to the purport that if the decision on the payment of subsidies was made, it would not be paid as it is to the representative of the instant corporation, and that the representative of the material supplier, etc. would be paid at the same time.

(B) Around January 2006, Plaintiff B entered into a lease agreement with the instant corporation with AY, one of the land owners in the instant project site, but was not paid the relevant rent. On March 6, 2006, Plaintiff B confirmed that Plaintiff B, along with Plaintiff E, found in the oil station for the management of Y located in Chungcheongnam-Nam, did not pay the land lease and rent of KRW 50 million. Nevertheless, Plaintiff B requested Plaintiff B to submit a written consent for land use accompanied by a certificate of seal imprint, and Y submitted a written consent for land use by mail at F. On March 6, 2006, after the second subsidy of this case was paid, Plaintiff B instructed Plaintiff B to transfer the land use of KRW 50 million to Plaintiff E through Plaintiff E.

(C) On January 23, 2006, I heard the statement to the effect that the construction for the instant project would be resumed by a public official in the name of the F City G and the public official in the name of the F City, and that the construction will be resumed from the F City. At the same time, I failed to take any measures even after having received a letter from the F City G to supplement the deficiencies over 10 times, I submitted to G and the owner of the instant project site a confirmation of the fact of concluding the lease contract, which was written in the name of the owner of the instant project site.

(D) On February 24, 2006, the F City Department sent an official letter to the instant corporation that had already been performing the construction work. On the same day, G and public officials under the name of G requested A who had been in charge of design and supervision of the instant project to partly modify their design and apply for completion inspection. On the same day, G and the F City Director of the Accounting Division and the Director of the Development Construction Division requested cooperation for completion inspection.

(E) On February 27, 2006, Plaintiff E confirmed the construction site of the instant project and the installation of plastic houses, etc. at the instant project site and with AB and AC affiliated thereto. The Plaintiff D, C, and B confirmed the said site around that time. At the time, the boiler, quantitative cultivation facilities, carbon dioxide generation facilities, etc. were carried in to the site only, but not installed at the time, and the test operation was not possible due to the lack of complete installation of ornamental and electric facilities essential for quantitative cultivation (the fact that the plastic greenhouse area was short of approximately 870 square meters from around 12,01, which is the area on the design drawing, was revealed after the instant secondary subsidy was paid).

(F) The project period of the instant project was set by February 28, 2006, and if the subsidy was not paid by the same date, the instant project could not be conducted any more, and the relevant budget already allocated was returned to the agricultural technology center on February 28, 2006. Plaintiff B discussed the difficulties due to the restriction of the project period as seen above, on the one hand, to gather G and its affiliated public officials, AB, AC and M’s representative director Z, and AA supervisor.

(G) On February 28, 2006, Plaintiff E prepared a business trip report to report the contents confirmed in the previous site of the instant project at G department office. On the business trip report column, Plaintiff E prepared a business trip report to the effect that “The business trip column prepared a business trip report (AA complex 10,495 square meters, B complex 29,212 meters) of 12,01 square meters, quantitative farming facilities, integrated control tower facilities, boiler facilities, CO2 meters, etc., and “the business trip column prepared a business trip report to the effect that it was installed on the last half of the year in the course of promoting the 2004 H development project, which was promoted as an agriculture and forestry project, and prepared a business trip report to the effect that it was sufficiently designed as a result of construction without any damage (12,011 square meters), and prepared a contract report to secure the competitiveness of flowers and quality of the production and quality inspection of the Plaintiff A and CB of the same feed.”

(h) On February 28, 2006, I made a false tax invoice as if he/she paid four forms of a certificate of deposit without passbook payments and materials payments to M in order to pretend that he/she paid the full amount of the self-paid contributions, and repeats the deposit of money to the corporate account of M, which is the contractor, after having deposited money in the corporate account of M, which was immediately returned, and submitted a false tax invoice to F on February 28, 2008.

(i) The data on the details of the self-paid charges submitted by I in February 28, 2006 includes the fact that the construction cost of KRW 1,092,041,708 was paid to M around February 28, 2006, and KRW 465,075,430 of the material price was paid to L. In addition, the sum of the funds already identified as the project cost through the data submitted at the time of the payment of the instant first subsidy and the cost of the non-paid materials, etc., the total project cost of the instant project was 2,484,00,000 won. Plaintiff E, D, and C did not properly examine whether the project cost was spent after the end of February 28, 2006 and the data on the particulars of the self-paid charges were prepared, and after the completion inspection of the instant development project was prepared, the Plaintiff’s report and the report on the completion inspection on the completion of the instant project and the documents submitted to H 20,204.

(j) On February 28, 2006, F.I.D. paid the instant secondary subsidy to the instant corporation by means of remitting it to the deposit account in the name of M, a contractor.

(k) Until February 28, 2006, the instant corporation failed to complete the key part of the facility construction, which is an essential element for the payment of subsidies, as seen above. As a result, the instant corporation did not actually bear most of its own share of 1.24 billion won as a result of delay in the payment of funds for the said construction with subsidies. The instant project site failed to secure the right of lease for 10 years, which is the time period scheduled for operation of the flower Complex. Since it did not meet the requirements for the support of the instant agricultural corporation, the instant secondary subsidy was not entitled to receive the instant secondary subsidy.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 17, 18, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

C) As to corporate qualification requirements

(1) In full view of the following facts and circumstances, the above facts and the overall purport of the evidence Nos. 1, 3, 10, 22, and 24, the Plaintiffs were aware that the instant corporation failed to meet the requirements for the support of the agricultural corporation at the time of the instant secondary subsidy, and thus, were to have paid the instant secondary subsidy. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs are deemed to have intentionally violated the project implementation guidelines and relevant provisions.

(A) On June 22, 2004, immediately after the F City Regional Press and F City Council’s first subsidy was granted, the corporation of this case was notified that it failed to meet the requirements for the support of the agricultural corporation of this case at F on August 20, 2004. The F City Planning Auditor’s audit conducted an audit from December 10, 2004 to January 12, 2005, and confirmed that the corporation of this case was not eligible for the support of the agricultural corporation of this case, and reported it to the Plaintiff. In particular, the Plaintiff D prepared on April 22, 2005, after the review of Plaintiff E and Plaintiff C, the Plaintiff failed to meet the requirements for the support of the corporation of this case to obtain the approval, and the Plaintiff did not report and report to the Plaintiff, which failed to meet the requirements for the support of the corporation of this case, and the Plaintiff failed to meet the requirements for the support of the project of this case.

(B) On February 17, 2004, J was selected as a business operator of the instant project, and thereafter, the instant corporation was established on April 14, 2004 for the instant project and became a business operator of the instant project immediately after its establishment, and it is evident that the instant corporation has a business performance for more than one year after its establishment, and it cannot meet the support requirements for the instant agricultural corporation.

(C) A corporation, the main purpose of which is to provide support for the agricultural corporation of this case, i.e., the total amount of contributions is at least KRW 100 million, shall be invested in kind (farmland, facilities, etc.) which is a production element. A corporation whose main purpose is to produce at least 50 percent of its total amount of contributions must secure at least the self-payment for project costs (1.24 billion won) including its contributions, and its members shall be at least five households, and there is no effort to make any effort, such as making additional contributions or changing the composition of a corporation, in order to meet the requirements to thoroughly verify whether there is a disqualified person among the members of a corporation, or whether there is a disguised person’s personal business.

(D) The Plaintiffs do not have to verify whether the Plaintiff actively demanded the I to supplement the requirements for the support of the instant agricultural corporation or whether I took such measures. Rather, the Plaintiff appeared at the plenary session at F.F. on July 18, 2005, and failed to examine the corporate requirements in the process of selecting the instant project operator without explaining such problems. However, the Plaintiff continued to conduct the instant project after hearing the opinion that it accords with the public interest.

(2) As to this, the Plaintiffs asserts to the effect that they did not intend to provide active administration to successfully complete the business by supplementing inadequate requirements in the public interest level, and that there was no intention to inflict damages on the State or local governments.

However, the requirements for the support of the agricultural corporation of this case, as an essential element for the completion of the instant project, must be examined more strictly in order to successfully conclude the instant project. Moreover, there is no fact that the Plaintiffs have made efforts to find a more reasonable solution, such as designating another business entity and carrying out the instant project or reviewing the method of continuing to appropriately change the composition of the instant corporation. While the Plaintiffs have carried out public interests related to the benefits of business entities, the contractor and the contractor, etc. or the interests of the regional economy in the F City, the Plaintiffs are likely to bring about the public interest related to the benefits of the local economy. However, the Plaintiffs have consistently executed the government’s budget in accordance with the purpose that the government’s budget was compiled, and the government’s national interest that can be achieved by taking measures to recover the same for legitimate use when the budget was executed unfairly. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs’ internal interest alone cannot justify the payment of the instant secondary subsidy, and the Plaintiffs’ intent to commit the instant

(3) Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion of this case is without merit.

D) As to the requirements for securing the project site

In full view of the following facts and circumstances, the aforementioned facts and circumstances are as follows, which can be recognized by comprehensively taking account of the respective statements and arguments stated in Gap evidence Nos. 15, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 5, 12, 13, and 23 as well as the purport of the entire pleadings, the plaintiffs were deemed to have paid the second subsidy of this case even though they have been well aware that the corporation at the time of the payment of the second subsidy of this case failed to meet the requirements for securing the project site in accordance with the project implementation guidelines of this case. Thus, it is reasonable that the plaintiffs intentionally violated the project implementation guidelines of this case and relevant regulations.

(1) On August 13, 2004, the F City City Department sent an official letter to supplement the project site of this case to the corporation of this case on the ground that it is unclear whether the project site of this case was secured, and the F City Planning and Inspector Office audited the project site of this case from December 10, 2004 to January 12, 2005, and confirmed that the corporation of this case did not submit data on the registration of transfer of ownership, approval of land use, or lease contract for the project site of this case. In particular, it is difficult for Plaintiff D to prepare on April 22, 2005, after review by Plaintiff E and Plaintiff C, to secure the land of this case to secure the ownership of the land of this case, and to report it to Plaintiff B and Plaintiff E on May 30, 2005 and report it to the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry and to the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry as well as to secure the ownership of the land of this case within 70 days after the project site of this case.

(2) On July 18, 2005, Plaintiff A appeared at the F City Assembly plenary session on the project of this case without an explanation of these problems, and there was an administrative error, such as that there was insufficient review of the corporate requirements in the process of selecting the project operator of this case. However, Plaintiff A expressed his opinion that allowing the instant corporation to continue the project to proceed with the project of this case, and continued to implement the project of this case.

(3) On January 2006, Plaintiff B confirmed the fact that Plaintiff B did not pay rent for the lease agreement already concluded by the instant legal entity, the owner of a part of the instant land, X Y, or the instant legal entity.

(4) On February 23, 2006, immediately before the instant secondary subsidy was granted to the owner of the instant project, which was not issued a letter to supplement deficiencies over 10 times from the F City G, I submitted a fact-finding certificate, etc. on February 23, 2006. However, it is doubtful whether the Plaintiffs have properly verified their authenticity. In order to confirm whether the instant project facility is reasonable and whether the project site is stable, a thorough examination of whether the lease registration has been made, and the period of the lease agreement has been made. In light of the circumstances leading up to the payment of the aforementioned series of subsidies, the Plaintiffs seem to have failed to properly check and examine the aforementioned contents of the instant secondary subsidy by the end of the project ( February 28, 2006).

E) As to the requirements for self-payment

(1) In full view of the following facts and circumstances that can be recognized as the above facts and the overall purport of the statements and arguments in the evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, 14, 15, 22 through 24 of this case, the plaintiffs were well aware that the corporation at the time of the payment of the second subsidy of this case did not meet the requirements for the self-responsibility in accordance with the project implementation guidelines of this case at least, or with the intention to allow it, even if they were aware that they did not meet the requirements for the self-responsibility in accordance with the project implementation guidelines of this case. Thus, it is reasonable that the plaintiffs intentionally or negligently violated the project implementation guidelines of this case and relevant provisions.

(A) Since the ability to bear the cost required for the instant project operator is to secure the proper operation of the project, it is not sufficient to simply install related facilities in any way, but at least to require the cost of meeting the subsidy to meet the cost for its own account.

(B) At the time of the first subsidy payment, the corporation of this case failed to submit materials to verify whether to execute its own contributions at the time of the first subsidy payment, and even if it requested the F City G to supplement them several times, it failed to properly implement it. The Plaintiff B confirmed that the corporation of this case supplied W B with materials related to quantitative cultivation to the corporation of this case from December 2, 2005 to January 2006, but did not receive the payment from the corporation of this case. After confirming that W did not receive the payment, the corporation of this case would take measures to allow B to receive the materials instead of directly paying the money, and confirmed that the corporation of this case failed to pay the rent under the lease agreement. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs could have sufficiently known that the corporation of this case did not have the ability to bear its own contributions.

(C) At the time of the instant secondary subsidy payment, the fact that I, the representative of the instant legal entity, was widely known, and there was a circumstance that the instant legal entity failed to supplement data on enforcement of self-paid charges relating to the instant primary subsidy payment for a long time. Thus, even if the instant legal entity submitted data on enforcement of self-paid charges, such as tax invoices, while applying for the instant secondary subsidy, it should not be trusted as it is, but should be examined more closely once as to whether the Plaintiffs were executing self-paid charges.

(D) On February 28, 2006, the expiration date of the instant secondary subsidy payment term, the Plaintiffs received data on the details of disbursement of self-paid charges from I on a temporary basis. However, according to the above data, since the money paid by the instant corporation was more than the total project cost, the Plaintiffs had no choice but to doubt the authenticity of the above data if a thorough examination was conducted. Nevertheless, the Plaintiffs did not take any measures such as checking the authenticity of the materials against the companies that were being supplied with the materials on the grounds that there was no time to see it.

(2) As to this, the Plaintiffs asserted to the effect that the tax invoices, etc. submitted by the instant corporation as evidence of the execution of self-paid charges were false, which were revealed in the course of the investigation conducted after the instant secondary subsidy payment, and that the Plaintiffs could not be informed in advance, and that the instant project could be fully completed in consideration of the public interest of the instant project, since the instant project was conducted by up to 80%.

However, the requirement for self-payment is an essential element for the completion of the instant project, and rather, to successfully conclude the instant project, the above requirement should be more strictly examined. Moreover, there is no fact that the Plaintiffs have made efforts to find a more reasonable solution by designating other business entities and reviewing the method of carrying out the instant project. As seen earlier, the Plaintiffs, while carrying out the public interest of the instant business that is limited to the economic interests of the region of the relevant business entity and F City, have set the national interest related to the appropriate use of the subsidies out of the State. The said public interest alone does not justify the payment of the instant secondary subsidy, and cannot be denied the Plaintiffs’ intent to commit an unlawful act.

(3) Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim 4 of this case is without merit.

F) As to the requirements for the completion of facilities

In full view of the following facts and circumstances that can be recognized by comprehensively taking account of the respective statements and arguments stated in Gap evidence Nos. 10, 12 through 14, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 4 through 6, 16 through 18, 21 through 23 as well as the overall purport of pleadings, the plaintiffs were well aware that the corporation at the time of the payment of the second subsidy of this case was unable to meet the requirements for completion of the facilities in accordance with the project implementation guidelines of this case, or that they were provided with the corporation of this case with intent to recognize such possibility at least, while recognizing that they were not meeting the requirements for completion of the facilities in accordance with the project implementation guidelines of this case. Accordingly, it is reasonable that the plaintiffs intentionally violated the project implementation guidelines of this case and the relevant provisions.

(1) The construction project for the instant project was suspended on July 27, 2004 and resumed at will by the instant corporation on January 2006. As the end of the instant project period ( February 28, 2006), F City G sent a public notice to allow the instant corporation to resume the construction project on February 24, 2006, and requested AA, a supervisor, to revise a part of the design and apply for a completion inspection. In light of the aforementioned circumstances, it appears that there was an absolute lack of time to complete the construction project until the end of the instant project period.

(2) At the time of Plaintiff B, C, D, and E’s visit the instant project site on February 27, 2006, boiler, liquid cultivation facilities, carbon dioxide generation devices, etc. were only carried in to the site and not installed, and the pipes and electric facilities that are essential for quantitative cultivation are not completely complete, making it impossible to operate a test.

(3) On February 28, 2006, Plaintiff B discussed the difficulties due to the restriction on the project period following that Plaintiff B and its affiliated public officials gather AB, AC and M’s representative director, Z, and consulting engineers.

(4) On February 28, 2006, Plaintiff E prepared a business trip report to the effect that it confirmed that it was firmly installed as a plastic house facility as a design, and reported it to Plaintiff D and C after obtaining approval from Plaintiff B. Accordingly, Plaintiff E, D, C, and B was convicted of committing the crime of preparing a false official document and exercising a false official document.

g) Regarding the authority to cancel the grant of a subsidy

Among the subsidies for the instant project, the F market was delegated by the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry or the Jeonnam-do branch with the authority to execute, settle, and recover subsidies. Among the subsidies for the instant project, the local cost of F City is as recognized in Article 2-D-1(d). Therefore, if the F market and the Plaintiffs, who are its assistants, knew that the instant corporation failed to meet the requirements for the payment of subsidies, they should have suspended and recovered the payment of subsidies.

Therefore, the plaintiffs were unable to pay the second subsidy of this case because they did not have the authority to cancel the subsidy, so there is no intention or gross negligence on the part of the plaintiffs.

3) Whether the loss occurred

Property damage caused by an illegal act of accounting personnel refers to the difference between the property damage caused by the illegal act and the current property damage caused by the illegal act, i.e., the difference between the property damage caused by the illegal act and the current property damage caused by the illegal act. In principle, the amount of such damage shall be calculated based on the time of the illegal act (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da91828, Apr. 29, 2010

In light of the above legal principles, damages arising from the granting of the second subsidy to the corporation of this case, which is not entitled to the subsidy, should be deemed the difference between the state and F City property at the time when the second subsidy of this case was not paid, and the state and F City property at the time when the second subsidy of this case was paid. Ultimately, damages equivalent to the second subsidy of this case at the State and F City due to the plaintiffs' illegal act. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' assertion that the second subsidy of this case among the Chapter Chapter 7 of this case was used for the business of this case, which did not cause damages to the State, etc. is without merit.

4) Whether the computation of damages is lawful

A) On the basis of the Supreme Court Decision 2002Du1165 Decided January 28, 2005, the plaintiffs asserted that the second subsidy of this case was actually used for the business of this case, and that only part of the amount equivalent to the second subsidy of this case should be recognized as damages in consideration of the fact that the second subsidy of this case was actually used for the business of this case. However, the above Supreme Court decision of this case should separately determine whether to cancel the whole or part of the amount of the subsidy if the decision to grant the subsidy is revoked, and the scope thereof should be determined individually by taking into account the purpose and contents of the subsidy program, motive for taking illegal means in the case of receiving the subsidy, the ratio of the subsidy received in the whole amount, and the ratio of the subsidy used in the unlawful way among the total amount of the subsidy, and the ratio of the subsidy used in accordance with the terms and conditions of the subsidy. Accordingly, this issue cannot be applied to this case where the scope of liability for compensation under the Accounting Staff

B) Whether the instant disposition is unlawful or not should be determined as of March 2, 2017, which was at the time of the instant disposition. From KRW 923,458,050, which was the amount equivalent to the instant secondary subsidy, the Defendant deducted KRW 43,992,550, which was recovered from KRW 923,458,00 up to the time of the instant disposition, and calculated the amount of indemnity as KRW 879,465,50, as seen earlier. As seen in the background of the instant disposition. There is no evidence to acknowledge that there was additional recovered money other than KRW 43,92,550, at the time of the instant disposition. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs’ assertion that the recovered money should be deducted from the principal claim is without merit.

5) Whether there are grounds for reduction or exemption of the amount of compensation

The proviso of Article 5 of the Accounting Personnel Liability Act provides that any damage shall not be reduced or exempted if the damage was caused by intention. The plaintiffs intentionally in violation of the relevant statutes and regulations, thereby resulting in damage to the State and the F by granting the second subsidy to the pertinent corporation. As seen earlier, the amount of indemnity against the plaintiffs shall not be reduced or exempted.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' chapter 8 of this case is without merit to examine further.

6) Whether the statute of limitations has expired

A) Article 6(1) and (5) of the Accounting Personnel Liability Act, the head of a central government agency, the head of a local government, the head of a supervisory agency, and the head of the pertinent agency are liable for accounting personnel under Article 4 of the same Act.

If it is recognized, the Board of Audit and Inspection may order the relevant accounting personnel to compensate even before the determination, and if the order of compensation has been served on the relevant accounting personnel, the interruption of prescription shall be effective.

B) The second subsidy was paid on February 28, 2006, and thereafter, around January 24, 201, 201, before the lapse of the five-year extinctive prescription period under the National Finance Act and the Local Finance Act, the fact that the F market’s instant compensation order was served on each of the Plaintiffs was examined in the preceding disposition. If the F market’s instant compensation order is lawful, the extinctive prescription period of the indemnity claim against the Plaintiffs under Article 6 of the Accounting Personnel Liability Act can be deemed to have been interrupted by the said compensation order.

C) In relation to the interruption of extinctive prescription, we first examine whether the F market has the authority to issue a compensation order to the Plaintiffs regarding the damage related to the subsidy of the instant project.

Article 6(1) and (5) of the Act on Liability of Accounting Personnel provides that the head of a central government agency, the head of a local government, the head of a supervisory agency, and the head of the relevant agency may order the relevant accounting personnel to compensate even before the determination by the Board of Audit and Inspection, and the interruption of prescription against the order to compensate is effective. In general, in full view of the fact that the head of an affiliated agency, who exercises the authority to supervise and supervise the accounting personnel, has the authority to order the relevant accounting personnel to compensate, in cases where it appears that there is a clear liability for compensation, has the purpose of securing the claim for compensation which belongs to the Board of Audit and Inspection without the determination by the Board of Audit and Inspection. In addition, considering the fact that the head of an affiliated agency, the head of an affiliated agency, has the authority to order the relevant accounting personnel to compensate.

In addition, as long as the F market is delegated by the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry or Jeonnam-do Governor with the authority to execute, settle, and recover subsidies (State expenses) with respect to the instant project, it can be deemed that all the authority over the measures to reinstate subsidies erroneously executed to the F market is actually vested in the F market. Accordingly, it is reasonable interpretation of relevant laws and regulations to deem that the F market has the authority to order compensation, which is one of the measures to reinstate.

Thus, the F market has the authority to issue an order to compensate to the plaintiffs, if it is deemed that the plaintiffs, who are the accounting personnel of the F market, are liable for compensation in the course of handling the accounting of national expenses and Si expenses related to the project of this case

D) Next, we examine whether the portion of the instant compensation order, which the FI would pay for the State expenses, is legitimate.

As recognized in Article 2-Ra 1(d), the F market was delegated by the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry or the Jeonnam-do governor with the authority to execute, settle, and recover the State expenses with respect to the instant project, and the F market appears to have carried out the instant project by means of compiling the F City subsidy budget with financial resources for the State expenses and city expenses, and granting subsidies to the instant corporation. Thus, it would be possible for the F City to receive the compensation for losses incurred by the payment of the second subsidy by itself and return the part of the State to the State. Thus, it cannot be deemed unlawful on the ground that the F City would have made the F City reimburse the State for the State expenses.

E) Therefore, since the F market’s order of compensation is lawful, the extinctive prescription of the indemnity claim against the Plaintiffs was interrupted by the instant order of compensation, and the Plaintiffs’ instant order of compensation is without merit.

E. Sub-committee

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case in the same purport is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed in entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges

Judges Park Jong-young, Judge Park Jong-young

Judges Kim Byung-hun

Judges Kim Jin-jin

Note tin

1) On April 21, 2006 and August 25, 2006, KRW 43,92,550 out of the instant secondary subsidy of KRW 923,458,050 was recovered, and the amount of indemnity was calculated as KRW 879,465,50 (= KRW 923,458,050 – KRW 43,92,550).