beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. In around 2015, the Defendant: (a) around 2015, for the purpose of inducing the production of superior processed products of fishery products produced in mountainous districts; (b) ensuring the safety of processed fishery products by facilities meeting international sanitary standards, such as HACCP; and (c) enhancing the competitiveness of the processing industry; (c) 40% of the project costs is borne by the selected business operators; and (d) remaining 60% of the project costs is subsidized by 30% of the national cost and 30% of the local cost (hereinafter “project costs in this case”).
B. On May 1, 2015, the Plaintiff applied for the selection of a subsidized business operator of the instant project as a corporation with the purpose of joint shipment, processing, export, etc. of fishery products, and on March 1, 2015, the Plaintiff was selected as a subsidized business operator with the total project cost of KRW 97 million ( KRW 272 billion in national expenses, KRW 272 billion in local expenses, KRW 363 million in self-payment).
On June 9, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for subsidies with the Defendant, and the Defendant rendered a decision to grant subsidies of KRW 544 million to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant subsidies”).
C. The Plaintiff received subsidies of KRW 188,91,100 as the completion money on October 8, 2015, respectively, from the Defendant, by submitting a report on the commencement of the construction of fishery products cooking and processing equipment, including heat and steam generation equipment, a purchase contract, a written estimate, etc., and submitting a progress payment around October 12, 2015.
After that, on October 21, 2016, the Defendant revoked the decision to grant the instant subsidy pursuant to Article 30 of the Subsidy Management Act (hereinafter “Subsidy Act”) and Article 32-8 of the Local Finance Act, etc. and rendered a decision to return KRW 544 million and interest KRW 5,344,680 on the ground that the Plaintiff received the subsidy by false application or other unlawful means.
(1) [No. 1.3] was a fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, and No. 1.