logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2018.03.27 2017두69038
부당이득금징수처분취소
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daejeon High Court.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 2 Subparag. 1 (h) of the former Social Welfare Services Act (amended by Act No. 13996, Feb. 3, 2016; hereinafter the same) provides for “social welfare services” as one of the “social welfare services” with the aim of providing various kinds of welfare services, such as services related to rehabilitation of mentally ill persons under the Mental Health Act, and volunteer service activities and operation or support of welfare facilities related thereto.”

Meanwhile, Article 42(1) of the same Act provides that “The State or a local government may fully or partially subsidize expenses incurred by a person prescribed by Presidential Decree among persons who conduct social welfare business,” and Article 42(2) provides that “the subsidy under paragraph (1) shall not be used for any purpose other than its original purpose,” and Article 42(3) provides that “the State or a local government may order a person who has received a subsidy pursuant to paragraph (1) to return all or part of the subsidy already paid, if the person falls under any of the following subparagraphs,” and subparagraph 2 provides that “the use of the subsidy for any purpose other than its original purpose.”

2. The lower court acknowledged that the Plaintiff’s act of using E, etc. as a subsidy received in the name of operating expenses of the Child Welfare Center, constitutes “use of a subsidy for purposes other than business purposes” under Article 42(3)2 of the former Social Welfare Services Act, and thus becomes subject to restitution, since the Plaintiff’s act of using the subsidy received in the name of operating expenses of the Child Welfare Center, is no longer deemed an employee belonging to the Child Welfare Center since the registration of employees was completed, E, etc. cannot be deemed an employee belonging to the Child Welfare Center.

3. However, the lower court’s determination is difficult to accept.

First of all, the Corporation.

arrow