(영문) 대구지방법원 2014.4.18. 선고 2013구합10665 판결

1. On October 19, 2012, the Defendant’s revocation of the certification of a social enterprise and the collection of subsidies against the Plaintiff shall be revoked, respectively.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Purport of claim

The same shall apply to the order.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 14, 2008, the Plaintiff applied for the certification of social enterprises (hereinafter referred to as the “instant application”) with the content of the business of manufacturing and selling recycled bicycles, leasing and selling art bicycles, planning for street culture and tourism (hereinafter referred to as the “instant business”). On December 30, 2008, the Defendant certified the Plaintiff as a social enterprise and provided financial support under Article 14 of the Social Enterprise Promotion Act.

B. On May 25, 2012, there was a press report that the Secretary-General and the Plaintiff’s representative received large amount of subsidies by manipulating documents in the process of applying for the certification of a social enterprise. The Defendant started an investigation on May 29, 2012, and determined the revocation of the certification of a social enterprise and the recovery of subsidies against the Plaintiff on July 25, 2012.

C. The Defendant held a hearing on August 27, 2012 and submitted the Plaintiff’s written opinion from the Plaintiff. On September 7, 2012, after undergoing questioning procedures, etc. with the Ministry of Employment and Labor on the Plaintiff’s opinion, on October 19, 2012, revoked the certification of a social enterprise for the Plaintiff on the following grounds, and notified the Plaintiff of restitution of KRW 896,55,550 in total of the subsidies paid to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”), and “each disposition of this case” in general name.

Notification of decision on administrative disposition such as cancellation of the certification of a social enterprise (Evidence 1) - Notification of decision on administrative disposition such as cancellation of the certification of a social enterprise (Evidence 1) - Article 30, 31, 33-2 of the Subsidy Management Act, Articles 7, 8, and 18 of the Social Enterprise Promotion Act, Article 13 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 17 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act are confirmed to have violated Article 18 (Revocation of Certification) of the Private Trade Promotion Act, such as the preparation of minutes of the board of directors, which can verify the structural form, at the time of application for certification of a social enterprise,

A person shall be appointed.

D. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal on December 18, 2012, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the request on March 12, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 7, 9, 10 evidence, Eul evidence 2 through 13 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The parties' assertion

1) The plaintiff's assertion

A) On August 1, 2008, the minutes of the 5th Incorporated Foundation B's meeting (hereinafter referred to as the "Minutes of the 5th Incorporated Foundation") submitted by the Plaintiff at the time of the instant application were not falsely prepared or forged. The Plaintiff's representative C, as the Secretary General of B, has used the official seal or seal of the president of the 2nd Charter (Operation) and the president of the Foundation in the office whenever necessary, while keeping the official seal or seal of the president of the 2nd Foundation in the office. Therefore, the Plaintiff's representative C obtained a comprehensive delegation or implied consent as to the preparation of the

In addition, since the minutes of the meeting of this case were received ex post facto prosecution by reporting to the Foundation Council by the resolution of the Charter Council around June 2012, the procedural defects were completely cured.

B) Even if a false preparation or forgery was made, the instant meeting minutes of the board of directors do not necessarily require the Plaintiff’s social enterprise certification. According to the public notice of the Minister of Labor in 2008, the minutes of the board of directors of the parent corporation do not necessarily require the minutes of the board of directors of the parent corporation, and the actual independence from the parent corporation can be explained as other data, such as the meeting minutes of the board of directors. At the time of the instant application, the Plaintiff has already been operated independently from the Incorporated Foundation B (hereinafter “ Incorporated Foundation B”) and had a structural form under the requirements for certification, and only other objective data, such as the Plaintiff’s rules and the meeting minutes of the board of directors, met all the requirements for social enterprise certification. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the Plaintiff received the certification or subsidy of a social enterprise as “false or any other unlawful means,” without causation between

C) The Social Enterprise Promotion Act, the Enforcement Decree and Enforcement Rule of the same Act, and the public notice of the Minister of Labor’s application for the certification of a social enterprise in 2008 does not explicitly indicate the minutes of the board of directors of the parent corporation as an essential document at the time of the application for the certification. Therefore, interpreting them as an essential document is unlawful in violation of the principle of clarity. Moreover, applying the proviso of Article 18(1) of the Social Enterprise Promotion Act, amended by Act No. 11275, Feb. 1, 2012, retroactively to the Plaintiff, was deprived of the opportunity to undergo a discretionary review on the revocation of the certification of the instant disposition in violation

D) Even if a disposition to recover the entire subsidy constitutes a ground for revocation of the decision to grant subsidies, the disposition to recover the entire subsidy is unlawful in light of the following: (a) the failure, which was merely an error in the process of the implementation of the social enterprise support system, led to a harsh result in having the Plaintiff (the representative C, who bears the duty of indemnity) compensate for all subsidies used for its original purpose; (b) the failure of the project of this case, which was a successful, would actually cause enormous social losses; and (c) the public official with the authority to examine the minutes of the board of directors of this case could have been easily known that the minutes of the board of directors of this case were invalid; and (d) each

2) The defendant's assertion

The Plaintiff prepared the meeting minutes of the board of directors of this case in a false manner and submitted them to the Defendant for certification and received subsidies. The Plaintiff’s act constitutes “any false or other unlawful means” under Article 18(1)1 of the Social Enterprise Promotion Act and Article 33-2(1)1 of the Subsidy Management Act (hereinafter “Subsidy Management Act”). Thus, each disposition of this case by the Defendant is lawful. However, all relevant Acts and subordinate statutes are legitimate.

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

1) Structure of E organization

(A) The F organization (F; hereinafter referred to as the “F”) is an organization established to promote the unity and development of the German colonial year, and B is not a F’s affiliated organization or F’s affiliated organization that shares the ideology and objectives of the E Movement, but an organization that maintains independently the operation of the Organization, such as personnel, finance, etc.

B) The Incorporated Foundation F is a juridical person established on November 11, 1955 in order to own, manage, and supply property, such as land necessary for various projects executed by F and franchise member organizations, and the Incorporated Foundation B is a juridical person established on January 19, 1957 in order to manage B’s property.

2) Prior to the instant application, etc.

A) On September 1, 2007, B entered into an agreement on enterprise-linked social date Ri business with G and Daegu Metropolitan City, and was selected as a social job creation business entity in the Ministry of Employment and Labor on September 11, 2007, and around that time, the Plaintiff was constituted an independent business entity consisting of 50 members including the head of the group, etc., the head of the business group, the head of the secretariat, the head of the team, and the steering committee. The Plaintiff independently prepared an independent work site and the attendance site, and independently prepared personnel management. While using other accounts with B as an incorporated foundation, the Plaintiff was independently determined personnel affairs, accounting, and decision-making, etc. from B by establishing a separate website.

C) B received subsidies from the Defendant (a total of KRW 4.60 million) for three years, and the instant project was carried out, but the project was conducted on a yearly basis. The Plaintiff recruited desired workers to open to the public on November 2, 2007, and started the primary social job creation project from the 5th of the same month.

3) Public announcement, etc. of applications for the certification of social enterprises in 2008

A) On October 13, 2008, pursuant to Article 7 of the Social Enterprise Promotion Act and Article 12 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, the Minister of Labor published an application for the certification of the fourth social enterprise in 2008 (Public Notice No. 2008-203, hereinafter referred to as the "Public Notice of this case") and the main contents are as follows.

Public notice of the application for the certification of the fourth social enterprise in 2008 (Evidence No. 19) 1. (A) 1. - structural type of a social enterprise - a corporation under the Civil Act - a non-profit corporation under the Commercial Act - a public interest corporation under the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Public Interest Corporations - a non-profit private organization under the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Public Interest Corporations - a social welfare foundation under the Social Welfare Services Act and a non-profit organization under the Social Welfare Services Act * the agency within the corporation under the name of "the business body of the business body" (Submission of documents submitted by the business body). ② The fulfillment of social objectives - The standard of revenue through the business activities - the decision-making structure (4) the decision-making structure in which the interested parties participate (Article 9 of the Act) . . 2. 2. 2.(No. 2/3 or more of profits available for each fiscal year (No. 2000) of a company under the Commercial Act.

| 사회적기업 인증 신청서- 조직형태 확인 서류(법인 허가증 사본 등)- 유급근로자 명부사회적 목적 실현의 구체적 판단기준 및 영업활동을 통한 수입기준 총족 확인 서류※ 일자리제공형, 사회적서비스제공형, 혼합형, 기타형 중에서 택일하여 기재하고 증명 서류 첨부- 중앙행정기관·지자체의 시설비 등 지원사항 확인 서류- 이해관계자 참여 등 의사결정 구조 확인 서류※ 이해관계자 참여 등 의사결정 구조가 규정된 정관 등 및 실제 운영여부를 확인할 수 있는회의록 제출(공증 요함)| 정관이나 규약 등- 사업내용, 수익 확보 수단, 연락처 등을 별지에 기재하여 첨부

B) On March 2, 2009, the Minister of Labor published a public announcement of the first application for the certification of social enterprises in 2009 (No. 2009-53 of the Ministry of Labor). The content is almost the same as the content of the public announcement in 2008, but the attached data added "standards for the examination of certification of social enterprises, including the following contents."

The first public notice of application for certification of a social enterprise in 209 (No. 24) / [1] The standards for the examination of certification of a social enterprise should be prepared independently under Article 8 (1) 1 of the Social Enterprise Promotion Act in order to obtain certification as a social enterprise. Therefore, the department, agency, etc. of an organization may not, in principle, obtain certification as a social enterprise. However, in the case of a non-profit corporation, organization, etc., a separate business entity is organized to facilitate the performance of profit-making business to achieve the objectives of the organization. In this case, the business entity can be certified as a social enterprise only if it is objectively verified that it is substantially independent from the mother corporation in terms of personnel, accounting, decision-making, etc., and it is possible to obtain certification as the name of the business entity in the name of the "project entity within the corporation", and where it is difficult for the business entity to submit the documents to the business entity's association within the name of the joint business entity to the extent that it is difficult for the business entity's organization to obtain certification in accordance with its articles of incorporation.

4) Circumstances leading to the instant application

A) On November 5, 2008, the Plaintiff’s representative C extended the duration of the job creation project and planned to convert the Plaintiff into a social enterprise by becoming aware of the instant public notice.

B) On November 14, 2008, the Plaintiff’s representative C submitted the instant application to the Defendant a non-profit organization registration certificate (B), list of paid workers, specifications of the Plaintiff’s monthly salary (10th month), the Plaintiff’s rules, the operating committee’s meeting minutes, and the meeting minutes of the instant board of directors containing the following contents. The meeting minutes of the instant board of directors were affixed with B’s official seal on the part of the incorporated foundation’s “H”, and the signature or seal of the attending director was entirely affixed.

4) The Secretary-General shall report to obtain formal certification as a social company in order to ensure the stable and sustainable promotion of the A project entity (Plaintiff) which is a social job creation project, the minutes of the board of directors meeting of this case (No. 1 certificate), 5. Agenda 5. Agenda 1. Agenda 5. Agenda 5. Agenda 4. Agreement of the director and proposal of the J director

5) Progression, etc. of criminal cases

A) The Plaintiff continued to operate the instant business after obtaining the certification of a social enterprise. Around April 2012, the Plaintiff filed a petition that, at the three branches of the B Emergency Countermeasure Committee, certain human resources received double wages at the three branches of its affiliated business groups under B, and on May 25, 2012, the Director General of B fabricated documents in the process of applying for the certification of a social enterprise and received large amount of subsidies.

B) On June 4, 2012, the part of the B Emergency Countermeasure Committee accused C as a crime of occupational embezzlement, occupational breach of trust, fabrication of private documents, or uttering of private documents. In the process, around December 2012, the president of B, a foundation, prepared and submitted a letter of postal statement with the following contents.

H Mail Statement(Evidence 30) Hun-Ma is also called the Operating Council, and the Council of the Foundation shall be in charge of the management of the E's property as a member of the Council of the Foundation.The Secretary-General (C) shall be in charge of the management of the E's property as a legal Council.The Secretary-General (C) shall be in charge of the management of the Foundation.Although he/she has discussed matters such as the operation of the General Foundation, he/she has not been approved by the Executive Council, he/she shall not delegate the authority to prepare the minutes of the Council to the Secretary-General.If he/she has reported in advance that he/she will create the minutes of the Council of the Foundation, he/she would not be in charge of the work if he/she had known in advance that he/she would arbitrarily prepare the minutes of the Council of the Foundation.0 (COI) If he/she has reported in advance that he/she will create the social jobs, it would have no reason to oppose it.

C) On December 31, 2012, C received a disposition of non-prosecution of indictment suspension with respect to the charge of forging private documents or uttering of falsified documents, and received a disposition of non-prosecution of indictment with respect to the remaining suspicion (Evidence of Evidence) (Article 30959, 31684 of the former District Prosecutors’ Office 2012), and C received a disposition of non-prosecution of indictment with respect to the charge of violating the Subsidy Management Act on July 25, 2013 (Article 3066 of the Daegu District Prosecutors’ Office 2013).

The act of obtaining a subsidy from a social enterprise by voluntarily preparing two copies of the minutes of the Foundation B's board of directors (C) may be deemed to have been used as a means to deem that the receipt of the subsidy lacks somewhat legitimate legitimacy in the granting of the subsidy. However, it is difficult to deem that (1) the act of receiving the subsidy from an office or business that is not subject to the grant of the subsidy or (2) the case of receiving the subsidy in excess of the amount to be granted to the relevant business, etc., and ultimately, it is difficult to see that the suspect committed the act of receiving the subsidy by unlawful means as stipulated in Article 40 (Penal Provisions) of the Subsidy Management Act.

- In the case of the "A project team and the "K project team" operated by the suspect, each of the Ministry of Labor before obtaining the certification of social enterprises from the Ministry of Labor on January 2, 2008 and each of the Ministry of Labor on January 21, 2010, after undergoing an examination of qualifications every year and being supported with personnel expenses, etc. for about two years and three years, the Daegu Regional Employment and Labor Agency for each project team did not falsely prepare evidentiary materials, such as employing false workers when receiving subsidies, as a result of the audit by the Daegu Regional Employment and Labor Agency for each project team, and it was confirmed that the proceeds of the project were used in line with the purpose of the national subsidy management system and that there was no other use for personal or other purposes, and that there was no possibility that each of the project groups or mother corporations, as well as those of the 20-year branches of the 20-year branches of the Ministry of Labor, which had already been issued with the authority of the 20-year branches of the Ministry of Labor, as well as those of the 30-year Council, respectively, written evidence applications and statements.

D) Subsidies received by the Plaintiff before and after the certification of a social enterprise are as follows. The Plaintiff used all of KRW 861,825,740, and the total of KRW 34,729,810, and the total of KRW 896,55,550 for the purpose of business.

A person shall be appointed.

【Unsatisfied Facts, Gap’s entries in the evidence Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 8 through 16, 18, 19, 25 through 31, 33 through 37, 39 through 62, Eul’s entries in the evidence No. 1 through 4, 6, 13 through 17, 19, 21, 23 and 24 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) Whether the minutes of the board of directors of this case are essential documents

In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the minutes of the board of directors of this case are not essential documents in applying for a social enterprise certification in accordance with the public notice of this case by the Minister of Labor in 2008.

① It is apparent that the minutes of the board of directors’ meeting of the mother organization are not essential documents to confirm the structural form.

1. The requirements for the certification of social enterprises in the corporation are stated as the shipment of the business entity to the documents to be submitted in the name of the "corporate business entity".

In addition, “2. Documents to be submitted” of the instant public notice is merely written only as “a copy, etc. of the corporate license” as a structural confirmation document, and also cited a list of paid workers, articles of incorporation or rules, and documents confirming the structure of decision-making by interested parties’ participation. However, the content of the minutes of the board of directors of the parent organization is not entirely written.

In the public notice of this case, the article of incorporation, etc. that provides for the purpose of the decision-making structure such as the participation of interested parties and the submission of meeting minutes that can confirm whether the decision-making structure such as the participation of interested parties has been actually carried out, shall be interpreted as meaning the articles of incorporation and the meeting minutes of the project team that can confirm whether the decision-making structure of the project team within the corporation is actually carried out in the context of the phrase and context.

Although the reason for non-prosecution of the charge of violating the Subsidy Management Act of ○○, the minutes of the board of directors meeting of the mother corporation B, which is the problem that the complainant was above, stated that the minutes of the board of directors meeting of the parent corporation B, which was the problem, are not stated as documents to be submitted by the Ministry of Labor as well as the statutes at the

② Compared with the notice of application for certification of social enterprises in 2009 by the Minister of Labor, it becomes clear that the notice does not require the parent organization’s meeting minutes as essential documents in the notice of this case.

○ The public notice of 2009 was made by attaching [1] data in detail stating the criteria for the examination of social enterprises, but the public notice of this case did not give public notice of such data.

Even according to the contents of the public announcement in 2009, the project team affiliated with the parent corporation shall be able to file an application for certification as the project team within the corporation and submit the documents to the project team, and shall be identical to the contents of the public announcement in this case. Provided, That where the project team of the branch office affiliated with the parent corporation (third) applies for certification as a social enterprise, in principle, the name of the project team shall be stipulated in the articles of incorporation of the most superior corporation. However, in the case of a large-scale non-profit organization whose specific provision is difficult, the minutes of

Therefore, in cases where it is necessary to submit the meeting minutes of the board of directors, the meeting minutes of the board of directors are not essential documents in cases where the project team (the third main team of rescue) of a branch affiliated with the parent corporation applies for a social certification company and the articles of incorporation of the parent corporation are limited to cases where it is difficult to stipulate the name of the project team in the name of the subsidiary corporation.

In addition, according to the public announcement that the meeting minutes of the board of directors shall be required to be submitted as a substitute requirement for the requirements stated in the name of the project team, and the meeting minutes of the board of directors shall include the contents of operating the project team, the meeting minutes of the parent corporation shall be deemed as documents proving that the parent corporation consented to the operation of the project team in the parent corporation rather than the actual independence of the project team.

In addition, until the 2008 public notice "209 public notice", the project team submitted the articles of association of the above parent organization directly and certified as a social enterprise if the parent organization is stipulated in the articles of association of the superior corporation. In other words, the third mid-term rescue project team has approved the recognition of a social enterprise without demanding the minutes of the board of directors of the superior corporation if the mother organization is stipulated in the articles of association of the superior corporation. Therefore, in 2008, the minutes of the board of directors were not essential documents.

○○ is a F F’s affiliated organization that shares the ideology and purpose of the E Campaign, but is not a F’s affiliated organization, but a separate organization that independently maintains the operation of the Organization, such as personnel affairs, finance, etc., so the Plaintiff is not a three-way

③ In light of the developments leading up to the implementation of the social enterprise certification system, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant demanded the minutes of the board of directors of the parent organization as an essential document in performing the social enterprise certification business in accordance with the instant public notice in 208.

The Act on the Promotion of Social Enterprises was enacted by Act No. 8217 on January 3, 2007 and came into force on July 1, 2007, and the defendant seems to have dealt with the certification work of social enterprises for the first time between around and around 2008.

Article 8 (1) 1 of the Social Enterprise Promotion Act and Article 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act shall be limited to corporations and associations under the Civil Act, companies and limited partnerships under the Commercial Act, public interest corporations under Article 2 of the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Public Interest Corporations, non-profit private organizations under Article 2 of the Assistance for Non-Profit, Non-Governmental Organizations Act, social welfare corporations under Article 2 subparagraph 3 of the Social Welfare Services Act, social welfare cooperatives under Article 2 of the Consumer Cooperative Act, living cooperatives under Article 2 of the Consumer Cooperative Act, and other corporations or non-profit organizations under other Acts, which are subject to the certification of social enterprises. The

○ Nevertheless, the Minister of Labor, upon making the instant public notice, included the fact that not only the legal entity but also the entity within the corporation may file an application in the name of the business entity. However, there was no explanation as to how the entity within the corporation refers to any entity and what is the legal basis for the certification of social enterprises.

Only in the announcement of the Minister of Labor in 2009, the company's task force within the corporation (it is possible to be certified under the name of the business body within the corporation if the business body under the parent corporation mainly serves as the social business activities) is explained. However, the above announcement does not provide legal grounds and only requires the third-class structural business team to submit the meeting minutes of the board of directors.

According to the notice of 2009, the department/project team of the organization shall, in principle, not be certified as a social enterprise, but shall be operated autonomously independently from the mother corporation.

It can only be certified as a social enterprise, and shall induce the conversion into an independent organization within 2 years after the certification, and if there is a very special reason that the division or independence of the business is difficult due to the characteristics of the business, the maintenance of the form of the agency shall be recognized. However, even though it is not subject to the certification of the Social Enterprise Promotion Act, it is a arbitrary standard that there is no legal basis for inducing the conversion into an independent organization after the lapse of 2 years, and there is no announcement of this standard in the year 2008.

2) Article 18(1)1 of the former Social Enterprise Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 11275, Feb. 1, 2012) provides that the Minister of Employment and Labor may cancel the certification where a social enterprise obtains the certification by fraud or other improper means. In this case, the term “false or other improper means” means the affirmative and passive act that may affect the decision-making on the certification of a social enterprise, even though the social enterprise cannot be certified through a normal procedure.

Meanwhile, the term "cases of receiving subsidies by false application or other unlawful means" under Articles 30 (1) 3 and 33-2 (1) 1 of the Subsidy Management Act refers to cases of receiving subsidies in excess of the amount that should have been granted for affairs or projects that are not subject to the grant of subsidies or the relevant projects, etc., and it does not constitute cases of receiving a legitimate amount of subsidies for projects, etc. eligible to receive subsidies even if they have been used in a means that may be deemed to lack somewhat legitimate justification in granting subsidies (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Du16984, Mar. 30, 2007; 2006Do8870, Dec. 27, 2007; 2009Do8769, Mar. 25, 2010).

B) Therefore, in light of the following circumstances, as to whether the Plaintiff obtained a social enterprise certification from the Defendant by fraud or other improper means, and received a subsidy by unlawful means, the foregoing recognition fact and relevant provisions, and the following circumstances revealed by the foregoing evidence, at the time of the public announcement of this case, the requirements for the submission of meeting minutes of the board of directors containing substantial independence from the parent corporation of the business team or such contents were not entirely shown in the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes and public announcement. The meeting minutes of the board of directors of this case are not included in the contents of the substantive independence from the mother corporation, and even if the actual independent requirements are included in the public announcement of this case, the Plaintiff already met the substantive independence requirements from the mother corporation at the time of the application of this case. Thus, even if the Plaintiff submitted the meeting minutes of the board of directors of this case which were not actually held at the time of the application of this case to the Defendant, it cannot be readily concluded that the Plaintiff received a subsidy by fraudulent or other unlawful means after obtaining a social enterprise certification. Therefore, each disposition of this case was unlawful.

① The meeting minutes of the board of directors of this case were not essential documents when the Minister of Labor applied for the certification of social enterprises according to the public notice of this case in 2008.

② The Social Enterprise Promotion Act, the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, etc. do not have any provision regarding the certification of a project team within a corporation. The instant public notice also does not provide any explanation to the project team within the corporation, and only indicates the copy of the corporation’s license as a document verifying the structural form and the minutes of the meeting (project team) to verify the actual operation of the (project team) with the articles of association and other documents confirming the structural structure, such as the participation of interested parties. Therefore, at the time of the Plaintiff’s application for the recognition of a social enterprise, the requirement that the “actual independence from the parent corporation of the relevant project team” was not entirely shown

③ Inasmuch as the minutes of the instant public announcement are the minutes of the board of directors of the parent corporation, it cannot be the basis for the Defendant to request the mother corporation to submit the minutes that enable the Defendant to verify the actual independence of the parent corporation. The minutes of the board of directors of the instant case submitted by the Plaintiff are not all the details concerning the actual independence of the parent corporation asserted by the Defendant, and the Secretary-General shall report the fact that the Plaintiff is seeking to be certified as a social enterprise for the stable and continuous promotion of the existing A project team, which is the social job creation project, and the preparation is thoroughly prepared, and the decision to be implemented by the secretariat is merely the contents concerning the operation of the business team.

④ If the minutes of the board of directors of the parent corporation, which can confirm the actual independence of the business team, were essential documents, the Defendant, who received the minutes of the board of directors meeting of this case, which did not include all such contents at the time of the Plaintiff’s instant application and did not sign and seal the members present at the meeting, must have been demanded to supplement them as a matter of course. Nevertheless, the Defendant, without any further request for supplement,

⑤ Even if the minutes of the board of directors are excluded from the scope of actual independence, it is sufficiently recognized that the Plaintiff, at the time of the instant application, has set up its own rules for the unique purpose of creating social jobs, such as L Production, Sale, etc., and formed an institution such as steering committee, representative, etc., and carried out external social activities independent from B. The Defendant seems to have been well aware of such business at the time of the Plaintiff’s application.

B entered into an agreement with Daegu Metropolitan City and G on September 2007, which was prior to the Plaintiff’s filing of the instant application, on a corporate-linked social job creation project, and was selected as an independent project entity on September 11, 2007, and around that time, the Plaintiff was composed of 50 independent project entities, including the head of the group, etc.

○ The Plaintiff shall establish rules and enforce the head of the project group, the secretary general, the team leader, the steering committee, etc.

In order to establish an organization, independent work place and attendance place have been prepared, independent personnel management has been conducted independently, and from the foundation B, personnel affairs, accounting, decision-making, etc. have been conducted independently by the foundation B, such as opening a separate website while using another account.

The plaintiff recruited desired workers on November 2, 2007, and began the first social job creation business from the 5th day of the same month, and thereafter, the plaintiff continued the second social job creation business from November 5, 2008.

○ Upon the filing of the instant application, the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant a list of 41 paid workers, a monthly salary statement (in October), the Plaintiff’s purpose, organization and organization, finance, etc., and the meeting minutes of the Steering Committee, and the Defendant was well aware of the progress of the Plaintiff’s projects for creating social jobs.

④ Even after the Plaintiff’s certification as a social enterprise, the board of directors, a foundation, appears to have been aware of the forgery of the minutes of the board of directors of this case, and the president of the foundation, “If C had known in advance that the minutes of the board of directors of the foundation were arbitrarily prepared, the board of directors could not be allowed to do so (voluntary preparation of the minutes of the board of directors).” However, if the Plaintiff reported in advance, the board of directors of the foundation would have no reason to oppose it, and if necessary, the minutes would have been approved.”

7) After the Plaintiff’s certification as a social enterprise, the Plaintiff used the total amount of KRW 861,825,740, and the total amount of KRW 34,729,810, and KRW 896,55,550 for the purpose of the project. The result of the Defendant’s self-inspection (Evidence No. 4 and 6) and the result of the inspection of the state administration (Evidence No. 25) was found not to have any particular misconduct in the instant project’s performance and accounting management, in addition to those forged meeting minutes of the board of directors in the instant application process. The Plaintiff’s business performance was confirmed to be impartial.

8) With respect to the suspicion of violating the Subsidy Management Act by C, the minutes of the board of directors meeting of this case at which the defendant was found to be forged are not written in the Act and subordinate statutes as well as in the Ministry of Labor’s notification at the time of the application for certification in 2008. In light of the contents and form of the minutes of the board of directors meeting of this case, it is difficult to see that the minutes of this case affected the social enterprise certification and decision-making on granting subsidies for substantial independence from the Plaintiff’s structural form or mother corporation. The Plaintiff recognized that the minutes of the board of directors meeting of this case were completely separated from the personnel, accounting, and labor with B-affiliated organizations or mother corporations, and that the Plaintiff had been operated separately from the full number of employees, accounting, and labor, even with the statement of the president of the board of directors of the Charter board of directors, etc., it is difficult to see that there was an internal agreement on the Plaintiff’s operation and the application for certification of social enterprises. Accordingly, it is difficult to deem that the minutes of this case were granted subsidies by unlawful means under Article 40 of the Subsidy Management Act (Evidence).

3) Sub-determination

Therefore, without examining the remaining arguments of the Plaintiff, each of the dispositions of this case is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

If so, all of the claims of the plaintiff shall be accepted for the reasons, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges

The judge, senior judge and judge;

Judges' heavy defects

Judges Kim Gun-chul

Note tin

1) In relation to this part in the grounds for non-prosecution, the minutes of the board of directors in this case shall be signed and sealed by the participants, such as directors.

The B official seal is affixed, and the minutes of the board of directors meeting on September 10, 2009, as well as the participants, shall be affixed with the official seal affixed.

It is not a form that is not a form, and even if it is viewed as a general social person, it does not have the forms of normal meeting minutes of the board of directors.

to the extent that it can be known that there was no request to supplement it, and thereafter, a social enterprise of each project team.

The fact that the evidence has been accepted without any problem is a structural judgment in which the minutes of each of the above board of directors are one of the requirements for the certification of social enterprises.

(g) One of the data that has no special meaning or must be determined by integrating other criteria for review, as reviewed earlier;

It is argued that ‘the material was inappropriate'.