1. The Defendant: 30,673,00 won to Plaintiff A; 37,702,000 won to Plaintiff B; 18,300,000 won to Plaintiff C; and 1.3 million won to Plaintiff D.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant granted subsidies from March 2008 to March 2012, the Defendant decided to grant subsidies necessary for the “E business”, etc., and accordingly granted subsidies to the Plaintiffs.

Pursuant to Article 6 of the Ordinance on the Management of Subsidies for the Ycheon Military (hereinafter referred to as the "Ordinance of this case"), “The subsidized operator shall faithfully perform the subsidized project as a good manager in accordance with the purpose, details and conditions of the subsidy, and shall not use the subsidy for any other purpose.”

B. Around 2013, the Defendant’s notification of the redemption of subsidies and the suspicion that the Gangwon Provincial Police Agency for the return of subsidies by the Plaintiffs had acquired the subsidies by deceiving the public official in charge of the Defendant. On January 25, 2014, the Defendant issued a notification of the redemption of subsidies (hereinafter “instant restitution disposition”) with the following title: (a) the notification of the redemption of subsidies following the suspension of the F brand promotion project to the Plaintiffs.

By February 17, 2014, it is paid to the Bank (G) in the jurisdiction of the Republic of Korea after visiting the Korean livestock industry to receive a notice of payment due until February 17, 2014 with respect to the subsidy granted after the suspension of the subsidized project, which was implemented in order to promote the F brand but discontinued the subsidized project.

Amount to be recovered: The period of payment of the subsidy granted from 2008 to 2013: from February 3, 2014

2. Grounds for 17th day Recovery: The method of recovering the violation of the terms and conditions of subsidies under Article 6 of the Ordinance on the Management of Subsidies of the YA: The defendant in accordance with the instant disposition on the recovery of the notice, and the plaintiff A returned KRW 30,673,00 to the defendant, the plaintiff B, the plaintiff C, the plaintiff C, and the plaintiff D returned KRW 18,30,000 to the defendant, and the plaintiff D returned KRW 16,90,000.

C. On October 15, 2015, the Plaintiffs of the judgment of innocence against the Plaintiffs (hereinafter “the Plaintiffs”) deceiving the public officials in charge of the Defendant.