beta
Text
1. On July 27, 2015, the Defendant’s revocation of the decision to grant subsidies and the disposition to return subsidies to the Plaintiff shall be revoked.
2...
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The plaintiff is a company established on February 22, 2003 for the purpose of manufacturing and selling the employment contact with the employment volume and solar block character, and B is the former representative director and C is the current representative director of the plaintiff.
B. Around November 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to purchase D factory sites of KRW 6600,000 square meters (hereinafter “instant site”) at KRW 825,000,000,000, as part of the company’s general business complex in Naju-si, Jeju-si, a city general business complex (hereinafter “instant site”) (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).
C. On January 25, 201, 201, Naju-si rendered a decision to grant the Plaintiff KRW 412,50,000 (i.e., the State subsidy of KRW 10,313,00 (hereinafter “instant subsidy”) to grant the Si subsidy of KRW 10,312,00 (hereinafter “instant subsidy”) (hereinafter “instant decision to grant the subsidy”), and granted the instant subsidy.
On July 27, 2015, the Defendant revoked the decision to grant the instant subsidy on March 11, 2015 and issued a disposition to return KRW 317,659,030 in total amount of subsidies and interest until April 30, 2015. However, upon the Plaintiff’s filing of the instant lawsuit, the Defendant withdrawn the instant lawsuit on April 17, 2015 and issued the instant disposition on July 27, 2015.
For the plaintiff, the decision to grant the subsidy of this case shall be revoked, and interest KRW 75,182,540 on the subsidy of this case shall be recovered.
E. On the other hand, the Gwangju High Court prepared a false lease contract in collusion with the 'B and C on August 27, 2015 in the process of moving the Plaintiff's place of business to the Naju City, and received the instant subsidy by submitting a subsidy application form to the effect that, in addition to the area of No. 398.86m2 and No. 511, 881m2 and the area of No. 1662m2 in H-owned Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, the Plaintiff was pretended to be used in both the area of No. 1,940.62m2 in addition to the area of No. 510m2 and No. 511, 81.76m2, which was located at the time of the Plaintiff.