The case holding that it is not a subsidy under the Subsidy Management Act

The subsidization of seeds, fertilizers, etc. without an application for subsidy under Article 4 of the Subsidy Management Act and Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act can not be considered as a subsidy under the Subsidy Management Act.

Articles 4 and 5 of the Subsidy Management Act, Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Subsidy Management Act

Supreme Court Decision 75Nu30 Delivered on September 13, 1977

Jeon Dongp et al. and 16 others

Head of Gun

Supreme Court Decision 75Nu30 Decided September 13, 197

The defendant's disposition to recover grassland subsidies for each of the amounts stated in the separate sheet against the plaintiffs on September 17, 1973 shall be revoked.

All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

The defendant notified the plaintiffs of the decision to recover subsidies as stated in the order and notified that each amount should be paid by October 15, 1973 to the plaintiffs' respective land owned by the plaintiffs. The plaintiff's transferred land is subject to the permission to create grassland under the Grassland Act on August 8, 1969 and the permission to develop grassland under the Farmland Creation Act on May 23, 1969 is revoked since some areas of the areas are in conflict with the Forestry Act, and the above permission is revoked. The rest of the plaintiffs except the plaintiff Seosung Pung et al. obtained the permission to develop farmland under the Farmland Creation Act on May 23 of the same year or on November 2 of the same year, and there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that each of the above plaintiffs developed land and developed grassland.

The plaintiffs' attorney argues that all of the plaintiffs' self-sufficiency and creation of grassland, and that they applied for the grant of subsidies under the Subsidy Management Act or received the decision to grant such subsidies. However, since the defendant merely provided seeds, fertilizers, etc. free of charge for the purpose of the encouragement of livestock farming, the plaintiffs' measures for the recovery of subsidies under the Subsidy Management Act are illegal. Thus, the defendant's decision to pay subsidies for the creation of brying under the Subsidy Management Act from August 20, 1968 to October of the same year was made, and the defendant provided subsidies in kind from around 10 of the same year, but the plaintiffs did not use each owned land for the purpose of the promotion of livestock farming or dairy farming, and thus violated the purpose of the recovery of the subsidies to the plaintiffs pursuant to the provisions of Articles 17, 19, and 21 of the Subsidy Management Act and the National Tax Collection Act.

According to Article 4 of the Subsidy Management Act, a person who intends to apply for a subsidy shall submit an application stating the purpose and contents of the subsidy program, expenses needed for the subsidy program, and other necessary matters. According to Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the above application shall state the name or name of the applicant, address of the subsidy program, the purpose and contents of the subsidy program, expenses needed for the subsidy program, the amount of the subsidy to be subsidized, the scheduled commencement and completion date of the subsidy program, and other matters prescribed by the head of the central government agency. The applicant shall state the outline of the main project operated by the applicant, the matters concerning the plan for the implementation of the subsidy program, the method of using the subsidy program, the name and burden of the person who bears expenses other than the subsidy cost, the effect of the subsidy program, and other matters prescribed by the head of the central government agency. According to Article 5 of the same Act, if the above application for a subsidy is submitted, the Plaintiffs shall not be required to submit an application for permission to repay the subsidy to the applicant, and shall be required to determine whether the above application is reasonable or not to grant the subsidy.

Therefore, on the premise that the funds received from the plaintiffs are subsidies under the Subsidy Management Act, the defendant's disposition to recover the subsidy in this case following the revocation of the decision to grant the subsidy is unlawful since it is not necessary to examine the remaining arguments of the plaintiffs, so the plaintiffs' claim to revoke it is reasonable to accept it, and the total cost of the lawsuit is decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 14, 96, and 89 of the Administrative Litigation Act.

Judge Lee Jong-dae (Presiding Judge)