1. On December 6, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition to return subsidies of KRW 39,389,800, granted to the Plaintiff, to the Plaintiff on January 11, 2018.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a social welfare foundation established on April 9, 1958 for the purpose of operating social welfare facilities and mental health sanatoriums.

From March 2, 1982, the Plaintiff is operating C Medical Care Center (hereinafter “instant Medical Care Center”) which is the mental health sanatorium B located in Busan Seo-gu, Busan.

B. On December 6, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition to order the Plaintiff to return KRW 39,389,800 of the subsidies already paid to the Plaintiff on the ground of the erroneous determination of D’s salary class, which is the head of the instant medical care center, as a result of the Busan Metropolitan City’s comprehensive audit.

(hereinafter “instant disposition of return of subsidies”). (c)

Since then, on January 11, 2018, the Defendant issued an improvement order to the Plaintiff for the foregoing reasons.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant improvement order”). [Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 4 and 5 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination as to the disposition of the refund of the subsidy in this case and the disposition of the improvement order

A. The Defendant issued the instant improvement order based on Articles 30 and 31(1) of the Subsidy Management Act, Article 32-8 of the Local Finance Act, Article 30 of the Busan Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Management of Local Subsidies, Article 40(1)4 of the Social Welfare Services Act, Article 26-2 and attached Table 4 of the Enforcement Rule of the Social Welfare Services Act, Article 42(3)1 of the Social Welfare Services Act, and Article 42(3)4 of the Enforcement Rule of the Social Welfare Services Act, Article 40(1)4 of the Social Welfare Services Act, Article 26-2 and attached Table 4 of the Enforcement Rule of the Social Welfare Services Act. We examine ex officio whether the Defendant has the authority to dispose of the instant subsidy with respect to the Plaintiff.

(b) The details of the relevant statutes are as shown in the attached statutes.

C. Determination 1 of the instant subsidy