1. The Defendant’s decision to grant subsidies to the Plaintiff on April 13, 2017 is subject to revocation of the Defendant’s decision to grant subsidies to the Plaintiff for the creation of a mountain village ecological village.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The “B Village Association” is an organization consisting of about 60 households of the D Village, one of four villages in the Mari-si, Gwangju City, and the Plaintiff is a resident of the D Village.

B. From around 2007, the Defendant granted the State subsidies to improve the living environment of mountain villages and create income-based and mountain villages as the base for ecologically pleasant and scenic life, and implemented the project of creating mountain village ecological village (hereinafter “the project of this case”) with the following contents as the members of the mining village in Gwangju-si.

1. Project period: 1,462,00,000 project cost from November 1, 2012 to December 28, 2014 (i.e., 1,462,00,000 (i.e., State expenses of 1,023,000,000 Do expenses of 41,000,000 Si expenses of 398,000,000);

3. Major business contents: Installation, etc. of four private gambling groce, one toilet, one food experience facility, one drinking water supply facility, one square meter, one water play facility, outdoor advertisement (signboards), three street lamps, etc.

C. B around 2010, the Village Association organized the Committee for Promotion of the Project for the Development of the D Mountain Village Ecology (hereinafter “Promotion Committee”), and the executor of the Project for the Project for the Project for the Village was in charge of the application for subsidies, the execution of subsidies, and the management of the instant project as the chairman of the Promotion Committee from around 2012 to 2015, in light of the pertinent statutes or the circumstances of the instant case, etc. as seen in the following: (a) there is no practical benefit to distinguish between the Council and the Village Association; and (b) it was called “B Village Association” without distinguishing it from the above Council; and (c) around 2011, the Plaintiff was selected as the executor of the instant project; and (d) from around 2012 to around 2015, the Plaintiff was in charge of the application for subsidies

Accordingly, from 2012 to 2015, the Defendant decided to grant subsidies according to the instant project to B Village Council and paid subsidies. The instant project was completed on December 28, 2014.

On the other hand, on February 23, 2016, the Plaintiff is as follows.