Plaintiff 1

Plaintiff 2

The head of Gun;

July 23, 2014

Cheongju District Court Decision 2011Guhap1943 Decided October 17, 2013

1. Each appeal by the plaintiffs and the defendant is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s imposition of unjust enrichment of KRW 15,773,080 against Plaintiff 1 on June 27, 201 and surcharge of KRW 473,180, the imposition of unjust enrichment of KRW 5,044,750 against Plaintiff 2, the imposition of KRW 151,330 as well as surcharge of KRW 151,30, and the imposition of restriction on registration for the five-year suspension of rice income preservation service against the Plaintiffs, respectively (the date of the imposition of each additional charge against the Plaintiffs shall be August 23, 201, as stated in the first instance judgment).

2. Purport of appeal

A. The plaintiffs

The part against the plaintiffs in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked, respectively. This decision is identical to the purport of the claim.

B. Defendant

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The plaintiff 1's claim shall be dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, except for the addition of the judgment as stated in Paragraph (2) below to the judgment on the matters asserted by the defendant when it comes to the trial, and therefore, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The addition;

The Defendant asserts that the first instance court’s limit to the subsidies illegally received is unlawful as it goes beyond the scope of statutory interpretation, even though it is clear that the subsidies were received unlawfully and all registered farmlands.

In light of the contents of Article 13(1)1 of the Act, the scope of subsidies that are subject to return pursuant to the provision of Article 13-2(1)1 of the Act is unclear. However, the scope of subsidies that are subject to additional collection pursuant to the provision of Article 13-2(1)2 of the Act is difficult to be clearly specified from the language and text of the said provision. ② In a case where the scope of subsidies that are subject to additional collection is deemed to include subsidies that are not unlawfully received, it is not considered in the degree of the excess of subsidies that are unlawfully received. Rather, the effect of sanctions may substantially increase when the portion of subsidies illegally received among the entire subsidies is less than the portion of subsidies illegally received, and the Defendant’s interpretation of Article 13-2(1)1 of the Act may not result in harsh outcomes depending on the circumstances. ③ Such interpretation is justifiable in light of the purport of Article 13(1)1 of the Act’s amendment, Article 13-2(1)1 of the Act and Article 13-3(2)1 of the Act.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff 1's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remainder of plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 2's claim are dismissed as they are without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is justified with this conclusion. Thus, the appeal by the plaintiffs and the defendant is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Landscaping (Presiding Judge)