The judgment below

The part against the plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 2 of the Subsidy Management Act (hereinafter “Subsidy Act”) defines the amount of money, etc. granted by the State to create or provide financial assistance to affairs or projects conducted by persons other than the State as “subsidies”; the affairs or projects eligible for subsidies as “subsidized project operators”; and defines the person who operates a subsidized project as “subsidized project operators”; and defines the amount of benefits, etc. granted by a person other than the State, as “indirect subsidies” without receiving any reasonable benefit from all or part of the financial resources of the subsidies; and defines the affairs or projects eligible for indirect subsidies as “indirect subsidies”; and defines the person who implements an indirect subsidy program as “indirect subsidies”.

Furthermore, pursuant to Article 30(1) of the Subsidy Act, the head of a central government agency may revoke all or part of the decision to grant a subsidy if a subsidy program operator “if he/she has received a subsidy by false application or other unlawful means.” According to Article 31(1) of the Subsidy Act, if the decision to grant a subsidy has already been revoked and the subsidy has already been paid with respect to the subsidy program in the revoked portion, the head of a central government agency shall order the return of the subsidy corresponding

In this context, the term "false application or other improper means" means active and passive acts that could affect the decision-making on the grant of subsidies, such as deceptive schemes, although it is not possible to receive subsidies under the law in accordance with normal procedures.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do573, Mar. 25, 2005). 2. According to the facts acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted, the following facts are revealed.