Where a subsidized project operator revokes the decision to grant a subsidy due to false application or other improper means, the criteria for determining the scope of revocation thereof;

Article 30(1) of the Act on the Budgeting and Management of Subsidies provides that the head of a central government agency may revoke all or part of the decision to grant subsidies when a subsidy program operator uses subsidies for other purposes, or violates the provisions of Acts and subordinate statutes, the decision to grant subsidies, or the dispositions by the head of a central government agency pursuant to Acts and subordinate statutes, or who receives subsidies by false application or other unlawful means. If a subsidy program operator cancels the decision to grant subsidies by fraudulent application or other unlawful means, the scope of revocation shall be individually determined by comprehensively taking into account the purpose and contents of a subsidy program; the motive behind the subsidy program; the motive behind the subsidy program; the motive behind the subsidy program; the ratio of subsidies granted by unlawful means among the total amount of subsidies; the ratio of subsidies granted by such subsidies to use the subsidies in

Article 30 (1) of the Act on the Budgeting and Management of Subsidies

Supreme Court Decision 86Nu276 delivered on December 9, 1986 (Gong1987, 166) Supreme Court Decision 2003Du1288 Delivered on May 16, 2003 (Gong2003Sang, 1339)

High interest-gund Agricultural Partnership

Gojin-gun (Attorney Kang Chang-won, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Gwangju High Court Decision 2002Nu621 delivered on October 24, 2002

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. In full view of the adopted evidence, the court below acknowledged the fact that Nonparty 1, the representative director of the plaintiff, in collusion with Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 3, etc., forged or falsely prepared documents as if he conducted the project for the installation of seedlings and growing facilities, which is the support project of the subsidy of this case, using the status as the cause of the association, and received a subsidy based thereon, and forged the letter of consent to use land in another person’s name, 15, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, etc., of the letter of consent to use land, which is a private document of another person’s name, and forged the details of purchase and the statement of sales, etc., and fraudulently obtained a funeral subsidy of KRW 12,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, which is a private document of this case, by means of unlawful means, such as attaching these documents to the subsidy application document.

Examining the relevant evidence in light of the records, the above fact-finding by the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of facts against the rules of evidence as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

2. Article 30(1) of the Act on the Budgeting and Management of Subsidies provides that the head of a central government agency may, when a subsidy program operator uses subsidies for other purposes, or violates the provisions of Acts and subordinate statutes, the decision to grant subsidies, or the disposition of the head of a central government agency in accordance with the Acts and subordinate statutes, or when the subsidy program operator has been granted subsidies by false application or other unlawful means, cancel all or part of the decision to grant subsidies. If the subsidy program operator cancels the decision to grant subsidies by fraudulent application or other unlawful means, the scope of such revocation shall be individually determined by comprehensively taking into account the purpose and contents of the subsidy program, motive in which the subsidy program was granted, the ratio of subsidies granted by unlawful means among the total amount of subsidies, the ratio of subsidies granted, and the ratio of subsidies used in accordance with the conditions

After compiling the adopted evidence, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its decision, and determined that the decision to grant each of the above subsidies was a defect due to the plaintiff's fraudulent act, and that the plaintiff's side could have sufficiently predicted the revocation possibility by finding out that each of the above subsidies was illegally acquired, and that it is difficult to deem that all of the above subsidies granted by the plaintiff were transparently used in accordance with the purpose of granting all of the above subsidies, even if considering all the circumstances cited by the plaintiff, it cannot be concluded that the defendant revoked the entire decision to grant each of the above subsidies and the disposition of this case ordering the return thereof exceeded the limits of discretionary power.

In light of the relevant statutes and the above legal principles, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the revocation of the decision to grant subsidies and the deviation and abuse of discretionary power, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Shin Shin-chul (Presiding Justice)