The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

1. Purport of the claim.

1. Facts that there is no dispute over the details of disposition (based on recognition), entries in Gap evidence 1, 5, 6, and 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings;

A. The Plaintiff is receiving financial support from Incheon City City pursuant to the “the completion management system of urban buses” implemented by Incheon City as a company operating urban buses within Incheon Metropolitan City (hereinafter “ Incheon City”).

An enterprise participating in the completion management system of urban buses shall vest all the profits from transportation business in the Incheon Metropolitan City Joint Management Committee for urban bus revenues (hereinafter referred to as the "Joint Management Committee"), which is an incorporated association, and the Joint Management Committee shall distribute the amount calculated in accordance with the "Guidelines for the Settlement of Transportation Expenses according to the Standards for Urban Buses" (hereinafter referred to as the "Adjustment Guidelines") and "Standards for the Calculation and Determination of Standard City Transport Costs of urban buses" to participating enterprises, while allocating the shortage to participating enterprises, who have requested financial support

B. The Plaintiff had C and F and C offices for the operation of urban bus transportation business, and C and C offices were practically operated by the Plaintiff’s director, and F offices were substantially operated by the Plaintiff’s auditor G.

C. On April 29, 2013, the Plaintiff voluntarily returned KRW 77,160,056 in total on the grounds that D’s wage, etc. was calculated as personnel expenses for driving duty and received subsidies, even though D’s employee D did not work as an employee for driving duty from June 2011 to March 2013.

On October 19, 2015, the Defendant was 310,312,310 won (hereinafter “B”) and I, under Article 6 of the Settlement Directive, for the reason that the Plaintiff’s employees D of the Plaintiff’s C Office E Routes and H of the F Office H were employed as a driver, and was paid false financial support as indicated below, on the ground that the Plaintiff was unfairly paid with respect to D in accordance with Article 6 of the Settlement Directive.