1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasons why this part of the disposition is written by the court are as follows: (a) the second and second reasons of the judgment of the court of first instance (hereinafter “instant disposition”) are as follows: (b) the pertinent part of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance (from the second to third, and from the first to 7 to 10 pages) except that the pertinent disposition is used as “the recovery disposition of subsidies of KRW 15,020,000 for the project development expense support project of the above case (hereinafter “instant disposition”)”; and (c) therefore, it is identical to the corresponding part of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance (from the second to the third, the first to the third, and the first to 10 pages). Therefore,

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff received the subsidy for the project development cost support and submitted a quotation to the original project plan, but purchased promotional products by participating in the same amount of other companies that can purchase more promotional products than the same amount, and also implemented the project that applied for the project development cost support, such as the actual construction of the website. Accordingly, the instant disposition was unlawful on a different premise.

(b) The details of the relevant statutes are as shown in the attached statutes.

C. 1) Although the court of the lawsuit in the administrative litigation is not bound by the acknowledgement of facts in the relevant criminal trial, the facts established in the relevant criminal trial already established are significant evidence in the relevant administrative litigation. Thus, barring any special circumstance where it is deemed difficult to adopt a judgment of facts in the relevant criminal trial in light of other evidence submitted in the relevant administrative litigation, the facts opposed thereto cannot be acknowledged (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Du40016, Dec. 29, 2016). 2) In the case No. 2017No. 708, Suwon District Court Ansan Branch Branch, the Plaintiff’s representative director B, and the fact are the Plaintiff’s representative director B, and the fact did not intend to purchase the USB from the lelebbbbs, or to newly build the website by requesting the said L to use it for a period of time from L operated by K.