1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

On February 7, 2014, the Plaintiff was selected as a subsidized business operator and received a subsidy of KRW 300 million (including KRW 15 million for the purchase of oriental medicine) from the Defendant.

After implementing the instant subsidized project from March 5, 2014 to November 1, 2014, the Plaintiff submitted a performance report and settlement report to the Defendant on February 11, 2015. Of the subsidies of KRW 300 million, the unpaid balance of KRW 60,720 shall be deemed KRW 60,00,000 for the purchase cost of Hanba medicine and the settlement thereof shall be completed by deeming that the purchase cost of KRW 15,00,00 for Hanba medicine was paid in full on February 18, 2014.

After that, upon the Plaintiff’s suspicion of unfair use of subsidies through the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission, around June 7, 2016, the Defendant conducted a precise inspection of the instant subsidized project, and on September 9, 2016, notified the Plaintiff of the result of the precise inspection that the Plaintiff’s use of the instant subsidized project during the event of the instant subsidized project (hereinafter “instant event”) was KRW 1,390 for C products prescribed by 307 foreign tourists, and the total price is KRW 59,606 even if the upper limit of the product price publicly notified by the Ministry of Health and Welfare is applied.

Accordingly, on September 19, 2016, D, its representative at the time of the Plaintiff, filed an objection against the notification of the results of the above precise audit. However, on September 30, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the revocation of the said KRW 14,440,394 ( KRW 15,00,000 - 559,606) out of the decision to grant subsidies on the ground of Articles 22 and 30(1)1 of the Subsidy Management Act (hereinafter “Subsidy Management Act”) based on the aforementioned precise audit result, and the notification reached the Plaintiff on October 4, 2016.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). The Plaintiff filed an objection against the instant disposition on October 24, 2016, but the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the result of the review on December 1, 2016 to the effect that the Plaintiff is not entitled to file an objection, and pursuant to Article 31(1) of the Subsidy Management Act, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the result of the review on the refusal to file an objection.