1. On July 6, 2015, the Defendant’s disposition of returning the subsidy for the closure of aggregate extraction business against the Plaintiff is revoked.

2...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 7, 2010, the Plaintiff, a registration company of aggregate extraction business, completed the transfer of ownership on dredging lines (A).

B. According to Article 10(3) of the former Aggregate Extraction Act (amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter “former Aggregate Extraction Act”) and Article 2-3 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Aggregate Extraction Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 1, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter “instant public notice”) established on August 16, 2012 in order to support restructuring of aggregate extraction business due to the implementation of the fourth river lives project (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 2012-515, Mar. 23, 2013).

According to the instant public notice, the subject of restructuring is the person, etc. who intends to discontinue the relevant business among the registered companies of underwater aggregate extraction business as of the date of public notice of the implementation plan for the four major projects (Article 2), and the Defendant is the subject of support for restructuring.

(Article IV(1)(c).

On October 26, 2012, the Plaintiff, who is engaged in underwater aggregate extraction business in the vicinity of the Geum River, was unable to continue to operate the aggregate extraction business due to the implementation of the project (the date of the public notice of the project implementation plan: February 12, 2010), and applied for the payment of the subsidies for restructuring of aggregate extraction business pursuant to the public notice of the instant case. On April 23, 2013, the Defendant decided that the Plaintiff be eligible for restructuring after deliberation by the Committee for Deliberation on the Restructuring of Aggregate Extraction Business.

C. According to the above decision, the Defendant paid KRW 353,828,000 in total, and KRW 513,828,000 in total, and KRW 513,828,00 in total, on three occasions from July 8, 2013 to December 17, 2013.

On June 30, 2015, the Board of Audit and Inspection does not have dredging lines, shooting extraction machines, and screening machines among facilities and equipment on the registration criteria of aggregate extraction business.