Plaintiff 1 and one other (Law Firm New U.S., Attorneys Seo-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The head of Gun;

September 26, 2013

1. The Defendant’s disposition of unjust enrichment of KRW 15,773,080 against Plaintiff 1 on June 27, 201, in excess of KRW 13,169,020, shall be revoked.

2. The remaining claims of the plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 2 are dismissed, respectively.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the portion arising between the plaintiff 1 and the defendant is borne by the plaintiff 1, the remainder is borne by the defendant, and the portion arising between the plaintiff 2 and the defendant is borne by the plaintiff 2.

Defendant on June 1, 2011) 27

The imposition of unjust enrichment of KRW 15,773,080 and additional tax of KRW 473,180 against Plaintiff 1, the imposition of unjust enrichment of KRW 5,04,750 against Plaintiff 2, and the imposition of additional tax of KRW 151,30 against Plaintiff 2, and the imposition of a 5-year restriction on registration of non-registration of rice income preservation service against the Plaintiffs, respectively.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From 2003 to 2003, Plaintiff 1 was a person who held office as the head of ○○○○○ Ri in the documents in the Yancheon-gun, Chungcheongnamcheon-gun, and Plaintiff 2 was Plaintiff 1’s wife. From 2005 to 2010, the Plaintiffs registered the Defendant as the direct payments compensating for rice income, etc. preservation (hereinafter “direct payments”) with respect to each subject farmland indicated in the table (attached Form 1), and received the fixed direct payments and variable direct payments from the Defendant (attached Form 1) each year.

B. The Defendant: (i) registered the Plaintiffs as eligible recipients of subsidies or received subsidies by false or other unlawful means on June 27, 201; (ii) registered the amount of KRW 15,73,080 [11,29,295, 208, 2000, 205, 208, 205, 208, 206, 208, 206, 305, 205, 206, 205, 300, 207, 207, 208, 3208, 3208, 206, 3208, 206, 207, 3208, 205, 206, 207, 206, 207, 3208, 205, 206, 206, 208, 206.

C. On August 23, 2011, the Defendant imposed additional charges of KRW 473,180 on Plaintiff 1 pursuant to Article 13-2(2) and (3) of the Act (i.e., KRW 262,450 on fixed subsidies + KRW 210,730 on changed subsidies), and KRW 151,30 on Plaintiff 2 (i.e., KRW 75,280 on changed subsidies).

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence 1, Gap's evidence 2 (if there is an additional number, including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

1) The Plaintiffs maintained the shape and function of farmland in accordance with each provision of Articles 9 (Payment of Amended Direct Payments) and 11 (Payment of Amended Direct Payments) of the Act, and received subsidies from the Defendant by satisfying the lawful requirements, such as producing rice, but the Defendant issued each disposition of the instant case without properly verifying the fact. As such, each disposition of the instant case is unlawful.

2) Even if the Plaintiffs received some subsidies by false or other unlawful means, it is unlawful for the Plaintiffs to collect only subsidies for the pertinent year that the Plaintiffs received, and to impose additional collection on the pertinent land. However, it is unlawful for the Defendant to have the Plaintiffs returned all the subsidies received from 2005 to 2010, and impose two times additional collection on the entire amount of subsidies received from 2009.

3) Since the part concerning subsidies for 2005 portion of each of the instant dispositions was completed by the five-year extinctive prescription under Article 96(1) of the National Finance Act, each of the instant dispositions on this part is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

[Attachment 3] The entry is as follows.

C. Facts of recognition

1) On December 14, 2010, when the trend of the receipt of subsidies relating to the △△△ in the documents in the Gun-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do was received, the self-inspection was conducted on December 15, 2010. During this process, Plaintiff 1 was not only the address 2 omitted, 241 square meters, ( Address 2 omitted), 952 square meters, 1,762 square meters, 132 square meters, 136 square meters, ( Address 4 omitted), 2,036 square meters, 2,036 square meters prior to ( Address 5 omitted), 159 square meters, 155 square meters prior to the ( Address 7 omitted), 62 square meters prior to the date of entry, 102 square meters prior to the date of entry, 258 square meters prior to the date of receipt of subsidies, or 251 square meters prior to the date of receipt of the said documents [Attachment 167 square meters of the said land] without having any capacity to receive subsidies.

2) Around that time, the Plaintiffs recognized all of the aforementioned findings, and submitted a certificate of voluntary return to the Defendant to the effect that the subsidies illegally received with respect to each of the above land were returned to the Defendant. After that, Plaintiff 1 returned KRW 1,178,910 from the subsidies wrongfully received on January 18, 201, and Plaintiff 2 returned KRW 659,210 from the subsidies wrongfully received on May 16, 201 to each Defendant.

3) On January 7, 2011, the Defendant ordered the head of the Gun’s written order to transfer the instant portion of subsidies received by ○○○○○○○○, and the military written order was implemented. In addition, in the process, Plaintiff 1 was found to have received each amount of money received from the Defendant (attached Form 2), although it did not meet the requirements for the payment of fixed subsidies or changed subsidies, inasmuch as Plaintiff 1 did not meet the requirements for the payment of each amount of money received as indicated in the table, ( Address 12 omitted), 1,534 square meters, ( Address 13 omitted), 1,359 square meters, ( Address 14 omitted), 2,493 square meters, and Plaintiff 2 was found to have received each amount of money received from the Defendant (attached Form 2) even though Plaintiff 2 did not meet the requirements for payment of fixed subsidies or changed subsidies.

4) On May 30, 2011, the Defendant conducted the hearing procedure with respect to the Plaintiffs, and Plaintiff 1 attended and was examined as Plaintiff 2’s agent. Plaintiff 1 stated that both Plaintiff 2’s pertinent subsidies were applied for, and that the Plaintiffs were unfairly received each received amount indicated in the table (attached Form 2).

5) On the ground that Plaintiff 1 received subsidies for a portion of year 2009 as indicated in the table of Article 29 subparag. 1 of the Act by fraud or other improper means (attached Form 2) in violation of Article 29 subparag. 1 of the Act, Cheongju District Court’s Young-dong Branch Office prosecuted Plaintiff 1 on the ground that it received subsidies for a portion of year 2009 as indicated in the table, and the said court issued a fine of KRW 1 million to the said Plaintiff on February 7, 2013.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Eul evidence 1 through Eul evidence 19, Eul evidence 22 through Eul evidence 30, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

D. Determination

1) Determination on the assertion that subsidies meet the requirements

A) In full view of the following circumstances that can be recognized by comprehensively considering the purport of the entire argument as seen earlier, namely, (attached Form 2) the current status of each farmland subject to subsidies in each of the pertinent years appears to have failed to meet the shape and function of the farmland for which subsidies can be received, and the Plaintiffs (attached Form 2) prepared a confirmation document recognizing that each amount received was unfairly received as indicated in the table, and submitted part of subsidies to the Defendant, which was already returned, and recognized during the hearing, and Plaintiff 1 was convicted of the wrongfully received subsidies in 2009 after filing a criminal charge, and Plaintiff 1 was found guilty of the amount of the subsidies received in the 2009, and Plaintiff 1 was also aware of the farmland subject to subsidies and the requirements for the payment of fixed subsidies and changed subsidies from 2003 to 2010, it can be sufficiently recognized that Plaintiffs received each amount of subsidies from Defendant 2 [attached Table 2] by registering as the recipient of subsidies by fraudulent or other unlawful means from 2005 to 2010.

B) Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion based on the different premise is rejected.

2) Determination as to the assertion that the calculation of unjust enrichment is unlawful

A) Article 13(1) of the Act provides that “The Minister of Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries shall not grant all fixed or modified subsidies for all registered farmland if a registrant or recipient of subsidies falls under subparagraph 1 or 2.” Article 13(1) of the Act provides that “The Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs shall return the subsidies already paid, regardless of the grounds falling under each subparagraph of Article 13(1).” Article 13-2(1) of the Act provides that “The Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs shall additionally collect twice the amount paid in cases falling under Article 13(1)1.”

B) Therefore, a person registered as a person eligible for subsidies or received subsidies by false or other unlawful means shall return the entire amount of the subsidies received concerning all the registered farmlands as well as the entire amount of the subsidies received. Moreover, the amount that serves as the basis for calculating the additionally collected amount should be construed as only the amount of subsidies illegally received, other than all the registered farmlands, on the grounds delineated below.

C) In other words, unlawful acts under Article 13(1)1 of the Act regarding the registration or receipt of subsidies may be related to all registered farmland, such as the qualification of the recipient of subsidies, and may be limited to certain farmland. However, in a case where unlawful acts are limited to certain farmland, the amount of subsidies paid for non-related farmland is already deemed to be an excessive restriction that is difficult to recognize the justification even if considering the background leading up to the introduction of the additional collection system, it is reasonable to interpret the criteria for calculating the amount of additional collection under Article 13-2(1) of the Act as the amount of unlawful receipt, and such interpretation does not seem to go beyond the literal scope.

D) In the instant case, as seen earlier, the Plaintiffs registered as the recipients of subsidies by false or other unlawful means from 2005 to 2010 and received subsidies from the Defendant (attached Form 2). Therefore, the Defendant issued a disposition that the Plaintiffs should return all of the subsidies received from the Plaintiffs from 2005 to 2010 on the grounds of this reason, and the Defendant issued a disposition that the Plaintiff calculated and imposed the amount additionally collected based on KRW 363,00,000, the subsidies illegally received in 2009, and imposed additional charges on the Plaintiffs pursuant to Article 13-2(2) and (3) of the Act on the grounds that the Defendant calculated and imposed the amount additionally collected based on KRW 2,828,440, the entire amount of subsidies received by the said Plaintiff in 209, not KRW 1,525,410, the Defendant was unlawful.

E) Therefore, the portion exceeding KRW 3,050,820 (=1,525,410 x 2 double) out of the additional collection amount with respect to Plaintiff 1 (=2,828,440 x 1,525 x 2) is revoked, i.e., the part exceeding KRW 13,169,020 (=15,77,080 - - (5,656,880 - 3,050 - 820)) out of the instant disposition against Plaintiff 1. Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff 1’s assertion is with merit within the scope of recognition.

3) Determination as to the assertion that the extinctive prescription regarding the portion of subsidies in 2005 has expired

A) Upon examining the statement in Eul evidence No. 14, the plaintiffs acknowledged that they received fixed subsidies from the defendant on December 7, 2005 and changed subsidies on March 17, 2006, respectively. The defendant issued each disposition of this case against the plaintiffs on June 27, 201, which was five years after the lapse of the period of time prescribed in Article 96 (1) of the National Finance Act, from the defendant. However, in full view of the evidence No. 4 and Eul evidence No. 8, the plaintiffs prepared a certificate of voluntary counter-payment for fixed subsidies and changed subsidies on December 2005 and submitted it to the defendant on June 27, 201.

B) Accordingly, the extinctive prescription regarding fixed or modified subsidies for the year 2005 was interrupted, or the Plaintiffs may be deemed to have renounced their benefit of prescription. Therefore, this part of the Plaintiffs’ assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff 1's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and it is so accepted, and since the remaining claims of the plaintiff 1 and the claims of the plaintiff 2 are without merit, they are dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment Omission]

Judge Choi Byung-hee (Presiding Judge)

(1) The Plaintiffs specified the date of the instant disposition in the complaint’s claim as June 24, 201, but it appears to be an obvious clerical error on June 27, 201, which is the date of the instant disposition (see, e.g., evidence 1-1 and 2).

2) On June 27, 2011, when the Defendant imposed unjust enrichment (including additional collection money) against the Plaintiffs, as stated in the purport of the claim, it was known that additional dues may be imposed if the Plaintiffs did not pay it by the deadline. However, on the same day, the Plaintiffs did not impose additional dues on the Plaintiffs. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs’ claim does not include the disposition imposing additional taxes on the specific Defendant on June 27, 2011. Therefore, the lawsuit on this portion is unlawful. However, according to the evidence No. 2-1 through No. 4, the Defendant issued an order to pay the above unjust enrichment to the Plaintiffs on August 23, 2011, who did not pay it by the deadline for the original unjust enrichment, the Defendant imposed additional dues that occurred until that time when demanding the Plaintiffs to pay it by the deadline for the original unjust enrichment, which is calculated in accordance with the provisions of the Act, and thus, the Plaintiffs’ imposition of additional dues on this case as a matter of course, did not claim the revocation of additional dues.