National Assembly Budget Office (Korea), "Case Analysis of Emergency Relief Payments in response to COVID-19: Focusing on major economies and local government" (Vol. 17, April 13, 2020)
Summary
This National Assembly Budget Office brief (Vol. 17, April 13, 2020) describes the emergency relief payments the Korean government announced on March 30, 2020 for households in the bottom 70% of incomes, measured by health insurance contributions. Payments range from KRW 400,000 for single-person households to 1 million for households of four or more, with a total of 9.1 trillion won, 7.1 trillion won from the central government and 2 trillion won from local governments. The brief compares payments elsewhere, including about US$ 290 billion in U.S. stimulus checks and about ￥4 trillion in Japan. In its own bullet points the central and local shares appear as 7.1 million won and 2.0 million won.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Cite this document
“National Assembly Budget Office (Korea), ‘Case Analysis of Emergency Relief Payments in response to COVID-19: Focusing on major economies and local government’ (Vol. 17, April 13, 2020).”
Original at www.nabo.go.kr. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/national-assembly-budget-office-korea-case-analysis-of-emergency-relie-65d83059df/
, SHA-256 44c000c68f497e83a12c6dee54394575a7511b4f34a0288264e06f1467afee94.Full text
Publication Registration No.
31-9700484-001731-14
ISSN 2672-0280
April 13, 2020 Vol.17
Case Analysis of Emergency Relief Payments in
response to COVID-19
Focusing on major economies and local government
Budget Analyst Yoon Yeomoon from Budget Analysis Coordination Division,
Budget Analyst Park Eunyoung from Administrative Budget Analysis Division of Budget Analysis Department
Overview of
On March 30, 2020, the Korean government announced the“Emergency
Emergency
Relief Payments”in response to COVID-19 crisis1)
Relief - Eligibility: Korean households in the bottom 70 % income bracket2) determined by
Payments using the sum of individual health insurance contributions paid in March as a key
standard.
- Amount of payment: Payments to vary according to the number of household
members (from KRW 400,000 for single-person households to 1 million for four-
person households)
[Table 1] Eligibility requirement and the amount of assistance by household types
(Unit: KRW)
Health insurance premium
Amount of relief
Employed Local Employed + Local payment
subscriber subscriber subscribers
Single-person
88,344 63,778 - 0.4 million
households
Two-person
150,025 147,928 151,927 0.6 million
households
Three-person
195,200 203,127 198,402 0.8 million
households
Four-person
237,652 254,909 242,715 1 million
households
Note: For families with more than five members, the sum of insurance contributions is calculated based on the number of
household members, but they will receive the amount equivalent to four-person households
Source: Government briefings, “The eligible requirement principle of Emergency Relief Payment drawn up” (April 04, 2020)
1) Government briefings, “Emergency Relief Payment Plan” (March 30, 2020)
2) Wealth is to be added to the eligibility requirement (under internal review by the governmnet). The non-subscribers to
national health insurance are also to be added.
Focus
- Means of payment: Cash or voucher. Currently, the latter(regional gift certificates
or local currency) is under review.
- The total volume and source of finance: A total of 9.1 trillion won is to be spent
(7.1 trillion won and 2 trillion won funded by the central government and local
government respectively)3)
•The 7.1 million won to be spent by the central government is drawn up in the second
supplementary budget. However, it will be fully financed by restructuring the annual
expenditure of the original budget.
•The 2.0 million won will be financed by spending restructuring and the local government
funds (Disaster Management Fund, Disaster Relief Fund, and Regional Development Fund)
Despite the government’s official announcement, there were recent calls for extending the grant in certain
amounts to all citizens. The Prime Minister mentioned that universal assistance may be realized as long as
a system is in place to reclaim the payment offered to high-income earners (April 8, 2020)
Cases in
Direct cash assistance measures in major economies
major - The eligibility requirements and volume of assistance vary by countries
economies
[Table 2] Summary of direct cash assistance in major economies
Details
US$1200 for individuals with annual adjusted gross income
below US$75,000 Based on the 2018 or 2019 income if
income is not confirmed yet. (US$150,000 for couples who
file jointly)
Eligibility/Amount of ※ The stimulus check is reduced by US$5 for every
assistance US$100 for individuals earning more than US$75,000
→ This makes individuals earning above the income
threshold of US$99,000 (US$198,000 for couples who
file jointly) ineligible for the stimulus check.
United States1) ※ An extra US$500 per qualifying child
Direct deposit or paper checks sent by mail
※ Without application, the stimulus check is paid out
Means of payment automatically using the banking/address information
the taxpayer has previously provided to the Internal
Revenue Service(IRS) for tax returns.
Total volume of Approximately US$ 290 billion3) (at least 93.6 % of filers are
assistance expected to receive the stimulus check)
￥300,000 for households with reduced income
Eligibility/Amount of
※ Income requirements: 50% or more decrease in income or
assistance
residence tax reduced below the tax exemption limit
Japan4) Direct deposit to account
Means of payment
※ Payment is made upon application
Total volume of Approximately ￥4 trillion (10 million out of 58 million
assistance households are expected to be eligible)
3) According to the article titled “Congress Approves Economic Relief Plan for Individuals and Businesses” published by
the Tax Foundation(US NGO) on March 30, 2020, 93.6% of the taxpayers are likely to receive the aid. Non-taxpayers
and children are all subject to the aid; thus, at least 93.6% or more are subject to the aid.
Focus
Details
Provide operational costs for 3 months for freelancers, self-employed, and small
business with less than 10 employees
※ Up to €9,000 for freelancers, self-employed, and small business and up to
Germany
€1,500 for businesses with 6 - 10 employees
※ Advance payment is made upon request. However, an evidential document must
be submitted to prove that the applicant has been experiencing difficult cash flow.
Provide €1500 to freelancer, self-employed. and small businesses with less
than 10 employees whose profit for the last financial year is less than €1 million
France
and is experiencing 50% or more loss in profits or temporal shut down of the
business(maximum 1200)
HK$10,000 (approximately KRW1.55 million) assistance for all permanent residents
Hong Kong
(individuals)
S$100-300 (approximately KRW85,000-260,000) assistance for all Singaporeans
(individuals) depending on income.
Singapore
※ Additional assistance for parents with qualifying children, Singaporeans aged
50 years and above, and low-income families.
1) Also known as Tax Rebate. The bill CARES Act (Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act) is passed by the
House and signed by the president on March 27, 2020.
2) Based on the 2018 or 2019 income if income is not confirmed yet.
3) According to “Congress Approves Economic Relief Plan for Individuals and Businesses” published by Tax Foundation(US
NGO) on March 30, 2020, 93.6% of the taxpayers are likely to receive the aid. Non-taxpayers and children are all
subject to the aid; thus, at least 93.6% or more are subject to the aid.
4) Known as the “Livelihood support temporal aid,”,the Japanese government has been promoting measures after the
official announcement of the assistance on April7, 2020.
Source: NABO
Analysis of the economic impact of the past direct cash assistance in major
economies
- During the global financial crisis (2008-2009), the United States, Japan, and Taiwan
offered cash assistance to their people and analyzed its economic impact.
- Tax Rebate in the United States (2001, 2008)
•Policy Overview
Focus
[Table 3] Overview of the US Tax Rebate
2001 2008
In line with
Objective In response to the global financial crisis
tax reduction policy
Individuals with annual adjusted income of US$75,000 or
less (US$150,000 for married couple)
* When exceeding the income threshold is exceeded,
5% of the exceeding amount is deducted from the
refund → Individuals with above the income threshold of
US$87,000 (US$174,000 for couples who file jointly) are
Eligibility All
ineligible for the stimulus check.
* The income threshold of US$870,000 in 2008 is 169.8%
compared with US GDP per capita in the same year
which is US$51,000. This is similar to the income
threshold of US$99,000 in 2020(168.9%) compared with
the US GDP per capita of US$59,000 in the same year.
US$300 per individual
(US$600 for married
Amount of US$600 per individual (US$1200 for married couple)
couple)
assistance * An extra US$300 per child below age 17
* US$500 for single
parent
Means of
Direct deposit or paper checks sent by mail
payment
Source: NABO
•Conclusion: The related research from CBO report is summarized as follows:
1. The spending stimulus effect varies from study to study and the interpretations of the same
results also vary.
2. The analysis of 2001 Tax Rebate indicates that the consumption was relatively high among low
income families.
3. The analysis of 2008 Tax Rebate indicates that the spending of the elderly relatively expanded.
[Table 4] Summary of US Tax Rebate Analysis
Author(Year) Study title Details
<Analysis of the government’s Consumer Expenditure Survey>
- After receiving the rebate, expenditure on food and non-
durable goods increased 11 % and by 37%, respectively →
David Johnson “Household Expenditure Short-term effects
and others and the Income Tax - Low income households spent much larger fraction of the
(2004) Rebates of 2001” rebate: Low-income households with an annual income
of less than US$34,300 spent 0.624 on non-durable goods
whereas households with an annual income of US$69,000
or more spent 0.255.
<Conclusion of the survey>
“Household Response - 20% of the respondents showed increased consumption,
Claudia R.Sahm
to the 2008 Tax Rebate: 28% spent on savings and 52% spent paying debt
and others
Survey Evidence and - 26% of the elderly respondents(age 65 years and above)
(2009)
Aggregate Implications” showed increased consumption, which is higher than that
of younger respondents (age 30 years or less), at 11%.
Source: Reproduced based on the studies referred to the Congressional Budget Office titled “Did the 2008 Tax Rebates
Stimulate Short-Term Growth?” (June 10, 2009).
Focus
- Japan’s cash assistance (2009)
•Overview: ￥12,000 for individuals aged 18-65 years and, ￥20,000 for those aged 65
years and above → Stimulus check wired to bank account without any limitations on usage
and period.
※ In line with the cash assistance provided by the central government, a significant number of local
governments offered gift vouchers and other means of support (1,084 out of around 3,200 local
government provided a total of ￥134.8 cash assistance)
•Conclusion: The analysis is conducted by the Japanese government (Cabinet Office) on
cash assistance is summarized as follows:
1. The impact on consumption behavior varies by research method.
2. Households with a child (40%), households with more than two children (70%), and the elderly
(37%) showed relatively increased consumption.
[Table 5] The Japanese government(Cabinet Office)’s analysis of the 2009 cash assistance
Analysis method Results
The effect on consumption behavior: Consumption increased
by 32.8% compared with the volume of cash assistance
First analysis
Survey ※ ￥136.38 million out of ￥415.85 million of cash
(January, 2010)
assistance provided to survey respondents (9,194
individuals) was used in consumption
The impact on consumption: Consumption increased by 25%
Household data analysis
compared with the volume of the cash assistance. However,
Second analysis by the Ministry of
the increase in consumption was 40% in households with a
(April, 2012) Internal Affairs and
child (70% for households with more than two children), 37%
Communications
for the elderly, which are relatively higher than the average.
Source : Cabinet Office of Japan, “Survey on Consumption related to cash assistance”(January, 2010). Cabinet Office of
Japan, “How did cash assistance affect household consumption? - Analyzing household survey data”(April, 2014).
- Shopping Vouchers in Taiwan (2009)
•Overview: A total NT$ 2.57 billion scale of shopping vouchers was offered: NT$ 3,600
(approximately KRW 160,000) per individual with time limit (January – September 2009)
※ In line with the cash assistance, many stores in Taiwan conducted promotion/discount events.
•Conclusion4): The marginal propensity to consume is 0.243. However, if there were no
promotion or discount events, the MPC is 0.164, which is somewhat lower.
Cases in Local
Economic Relief Plan of local governments
governments - 17 metropolitan governments and 45 local governments announced the economic
of Korea relief plan. Meanwhile, 14 metropolitan governments and 16 local governments
obtained a resolution on the relief package from the local council.
•As the Emergency Relief Payments of the second supplementary budget is matched with the
relief fund of the local government(20%), some local governments are revisiting their relief funds.
- The title, eligibility requirement, volume, method of application and payment,
financing vary by local governments.
4) KAMHON KAN, SHIN-KUN PENG & PING WANG, “Understanding Consumption Behavior: Evidence from Consumer’s
Reaction to Shopping Vouchers,” American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, Sep.2019(1), pp.137-153.
Focus
[Table 6] Emergency Relief Plan of local governments (As of April 7, 2020)
① Universal assistance (Unit: KRW 100 million)
Title Eligibility Amount Means of payment Total budget
KRW
Gyeonggi- do Disaster Relief All Local currency card,
100,000 per 13,642
Province Fund residents credit/prepaid card
person
Gwangmyeong
Gyeonggi All KRW 50,000
Disaster Relief Local currency card 158
Gwangmyeong residents per person
Fund
Gyeonggi Crisis Relief All KRW 50,000
Local currency card 1,031
Goyang Fund residents per person
Gyeonggi Disaster Relief All KRW 50,000
Local currency card 221.5
Gimpo Fund residents per person
Yeoju KRW
Gyeonggi All
Disaster Relief 100,000 per Local currency card 112
Yeoju residents
Fund person
Emergency KRW
Gyeonggi All Seongnam gift
Livelihood Relief 100,000 per 1,893
Seongnam residents certificate, prepaid card
Fund person
KRW
Gyeonggi Disaster Relief All Local currency card,
100,000 per 480
Siheung Fund residents credit/prepaid card
person
KRW
Gyeonggi Disaster Relief All
100,000 per Local currency card 1,064
Yongin Fund residents
person
Gyeonggi Disaster Relief All KRW 50,000
Local currency card 226
Uijeongbu Fund residents per person
Emergency KRW
Gyeonggi All
Livelihood 100,000 per Local currency card 454
Paju residents
Support Fund person
KRW
Gyeonggi Disaster Relief All
400,000 per Local currency card 591
Pocheon Fund residents
person
KRW
Gyeonggi Disaster Relief All
200,000 per Local currency card 1,660
Hwasung Fund residents
person
Disaster
Busan All KRW 50,000
Emergency Local currency card 109
Sasang residents per person
Relief Fund
Gijang KRW
Busan All
Disaster Relief 100,000 per Cash 150
Gijang residents
Fund person
Focus
② Selective support (Unit: KRW 100 million)
Title Eligibility Amount Means of payment Total budget
Disaster KRW Seoul Love
Below 100% of
Seoul Emergency 300K-500K per Gift Certificate, 3,271
median income
Living Expenses household prepaid card
Emergency
Small merchants KRW 1M per
Busan Livelihood Cash 1,856
and businesses individual
Support Fund
Disaster KRW
Below 100% of
Daegu Emergency 500K-900K per Prepaid card 1,749
median income
Living Expenses household
Emergency
Below100% of KRW 300K-1M Local currency
Gwangju Livelihood 910
median income per household (card)
Support Fund
Emergency
50-100% of KRW 300K-633K
Daejeon Disaster Livelihood Prepaid card 700
median income per household
Support Fund
Disaster KRW Local Love Gift
Below 100% of
Ulsan Emergency 400K-600K per Certificate, 1,055
median income
Relief Fund household prepaid card
Emergency
30% above the KRW 250K per Local currency
Incheon Disaster 933
upper income household (card)
Livelihood Fund
Gangwon-do KRW 400K per Local Love Gift
Relief Fund Vulnerable group 1,200
province person Certificate
Chungcheong Emergency KRW Local Love Gift
Below 100% of
buk-do Disaster 400K-600K per Certificate, 1,055
median income
province Livelihood Fund household prepaid card
Chungcheong Emergency Below 80% of KRW 1M per
nam-do Livelihood median income, household Vary by city 320
province Support Fund small merchants (business)
Emergency
Livelihood Below 100% of KRW
Jeollanam-do Local currency
Support Fund for median income, 300K-500K per 1,280
province (card)
vulnerable groups small merchants household
in COVID-19 crisis
Gyeonsang KRW
Disaster Below 85% of
buk-do 500K-800K per Prepaid card 2,089
Emergency Relief median income
province household
Gyeonsang KRW
Selective Disaster Below 100% of
nam-do 300K-500K per Prepaid card 1,665
Relief Fund median income
province household
Emergency Below 100% of KRW 600K-1M
Gangwon, Local Love Gift
Livelihood median income, per household, 534
Gangneung Certificate
Support Fund small merchants 1M per business
Below 80% of
Jeollabuk-do, Jeonju Disaster median income, KRW 500K per Local Love Gift
263
Jeonju Relief Fund non-regular person Certificate
workers
Gyeongsang Disaster KRW Local currency
Below 85% of
buk-do, Emergency 500K-800K per (card), Onnuri 59
median income
Gyeongsan Relief Fund household Shopping Voucher
Note: Data are based on the resolutions obtained from the local council (as of April 7, 2020). The execution and details of
the program may be revisited in accordance with the local government’s circumstances.
Focus
Composition of Emergency Relief Fund of local governments
- The local governments are appropriating funds from Disaster Management Fund,
Disaster Relief Fund, and Regional Development Fund. The legal basis and volume
of each fund are defined in Table 7.
[Table 7] Legal basis and the scale of local government funds
(Unit: KRW 100M, as of end of last year)
Legal basis Fund Volume Usage
To prevent any disasters in the
1% of the annual pubic sector and for emergency
“Framework
average amount of restoration of damaged facilities
Disaster Act on the
settled accounts of (15% of the minimum amount
Management Management 39,203
revenues from local of reserveare used for the
Fund of Disasters
tax and general tax for statutory deposit)1)
and Safety”
the last 3 years (21% of the minimum amount
of reserve shall be used)
0.5% of the annual
average amount of the
settled revenues of the For emergency relief and
Disaster “Disaster
local tax and general 12,4532) securing disaster relief supplies
Relief Fund Relief Act”
tax for the preceding 3 in case of a disaster
years (0.25% for Seoul
Metropolitan City)
Support projects that promote
resident’s welfare, local
Local government public enterprises, and local
Regional “Local Public
bonds development (The bond is
Development Enterprises 134,593
(Local government issued within the limits of
Fund Act”
development bonds) the local government bond as
stipulated in Article 11 of the
Local Finance Act)3)
1) The amount of statutory deposit in 2019 is KRW1.205 trillion, and some of these amounts can be used for natural
disasters with damage exceeding certain extent.
2) This figure is an estimation from the 2019 settlement, which may change when the settlement is completed by the
local government (May 31).
3) Considering the scale of debt, the schedule for repaying obligations, and other financial situations of local governments
every year, the Minister of the Interior and Safety determines the amount within 10% of the relevant local government’
s budget in the year before the preceding year.
Source: Reproduced based on the data submitted to the Ministry of the Interior and Safety.
- The top 5 governments with the largest scale of disaster relief budget are
appropriating funds firstly through Disaster Management Fund. Depending on the
fiscal conditions, each government appropriates the fund through other funds and
spending restructuring.
Focus
[Table 8] Composition of Emergency Relief Funds by major local governments
(Unit: KRW 100M)
Disaster
Disaster Relief
Management Regional
Name of the local Fund Spending Total
Fund Development
government (Accumulated restructuring1) volume
(Accumulated Fund
amount)
amount)
Seoul 3,271
- - - 3,271
Metropolitan City (6,197)
Gyeonggi-do 3,405 2,737
7,000 500 13,642
province (6,070) (2,891)
Busan 463
872 - 521 1,856
Metropolitan City (1,142)
Daegu 413
165 - 1,171 1,749
Metropolitan City (2,172)
Gyeongsangbuk-
- 315 300 885 1,5002)
do province
1) This figure refers to the amount of funds appropriated by the local governments by reducing the amount intended for
projects in the 2020 budget.
2) Gyeongsangbuk-do’s total amount of budget is KRW208.9 billion, excluding disaster response fund of KRW58.9 billion
transferred from the central government.
Source: Reproduced from the data submitted by local governments
Issues
A call for social consensus on eligibility and other requirements
and Policy
- The relief package is categorized according to eligibility requirements
Implications
•The Emergency Relief Payment can be broadly categorized into “universal assistance” that
supports all citizens and “selective assistance” that supports certain groups of people. The
latter can be further divided into “income basis” and “damage basis.”
※ Korea’s assistance measure is close to selective assistance that supports citizens in certain income
levels. Unlike the United States, which selectively supports “individuals” based on “taxation data,”
Korea selectively supports the unit of “households” based on “health insurance premium.”
[Table 9] Main types of Economic Relief Payment
Eligibility Countries
Universal assistance All citizens USA1), Hong Kong, Singapore
Citizens under certain income
Income basis Korea
Selective level (households)
assistance Citizens hit by the virus
Damage basis Japan, Germany, France
(individuals)
1) The United States’ income requirement is $75,000 annual income ($99,000 including the sliding scale). However, its
cash assistance is categorized into universal assistance because almost all citizens fall under the eligible criteria.
Source: NABO
Focus
- Characteristics and issues of relief package by types
•Universal assistance: Since universal assistance supports all citizens; hence, no social
and administrative costs were spent on separate standards, and payment can be made
quickly. Universal assistance is widely acceptable because there is no concern related
to discrimination or reversal of income. However, it increases the fiscal burden of the
government.
Unlike the government proposal, if the assistance is granted to all citizens in Korea, the
measures to reclaim the payment offered to high-income earners are expected to take place
in parallel. However, the government's proposal is designed to offer assistance to households
rather than individuals, which makes it difficult to set the standard to reclaim the aid under the
individual-unit income tax system. Moreover, reclaiming 100% of the assistance is difficult under
the current tax law (up to 42% of the income tax rate) or even through amendments. Thus,
further discussion is necessary in this regard.
•Selective assistance (income-basis): The financial burden is lesser in the selective
program than the universal program. However, it is difficult to set an income eligibility
requirement that is widely acceptable and reflects the degree of damage from the virus.
There may be a fierce controversy over equity due to income reversal. Since the payment
is based on application, it may entail payment delays, administrative expenses, and other
problems.
The government's proposal provides disaster relief only to households that fall under the
eligibility criteria and not for those exceeding the criteria. Thus, income reversal may occur for
households near the reference point. Therefore, reduced checks on a sliding scale are necessary
for households that exceed the eligibility criteria.
In addition, the government's proposal is based on the bottom 70% of income and references
health insurance premiums to determine the eligibility. This may cause controversy over equity
due to different calculation standards between the employed and local subscribers.
In addition, the health insurance premiums are calculated based on the previous year's income,
not taking the earnings after this year’s COVID-19 into account.
In response, the government announced its preparation of supplementary measures to help
local governments determine whether to apply for these measures by reflecting changes in
income conditions. The deliberation of the National Assembly needs to be carried out in parallel.
•Selective assistance (damage-basis): The program best suits the original purpose and
the principle of equity. However, as in the selective assistance (income-basis), it is difficult
to provide assistance promptly due to the time required for setting damage standard and
screening process.
Focus
Issues on matching the central government’s relief fund with local relief
funds
- According to the government proposal, the Emergency Relief Payment (20%,
differential support in the case of Seoul) is partially borne by the local governments.
→ For this reason, the local governments responded through the following:
1. Revisit its relief program (Incheon, Chungbuk, etc.)
2. Refusal to finance the central government Emergency Relief Payment
(Gyeonggi, Gangwon, etc.)
3. Objection to the rate of local government expenses in Emergency Relief
Payment (Seoul).
Thus, considering the financial situation of local governments, it is necessary
to discuss the proportion local government fund in the Emergency Relief
Payment.
Other Considerations
- Ex-Post-evaluation: The Emergency Relief Payment is the first case in Korea and
will be used as an important standard when similar measures are taken in the future.
→ Conduct post-analysis of economic impacts such as increased consumption for
objective evaluation results as a reference.
※ In the case of Japan, the economic impact analysis was conducted twice in 2010 and 2012 after
the relief payment in 2009. It was used as a reference for the design of the assistance measure
introduced recently.
- Introduce a supplementary measure for the disaster response capabilities of local
governments: A significant number of the local government's aid programs are
composed of disaster management funds; hence, disaster relief funds are expected
to decrease significantly.
→ As the resources for future events of disaster such as typhoons and heavy rains
are exhausted, supplementary measures should be reviewed concurrently.
Conclusion
A discussion on countermeasures along the progression of COVID-19 is
required
- Since the Emergency Relief Payment is hastily implemented in response to an
unexpected disaster, prompt payment would be the factor determining the type
of relief package.
- If additional support is required due to the progression of the virus in the future,
the selective assistance focusing on the citizens hit by the virus must be reviewed,
which takes comprehensive factors into account, such as the relevance of damage,
fairness and financial status of the government.
Published byㅣNational Assembly Budget Office PublisherㅣLee Jonghoo, Chief of the National Assembly Budget Office
Produced byㅣBudget Analysis Division, Administrative Budget Analysis Division of Budget Analysis Department Contactㅣ+82-2-6788-4621
File and source
- File
- u144_kor_file-down-do.pdf
- Size
- 272,024 bytes
- SHA-256
- 44c000c68f497e83a12c6dee54394575a7511b4f34a0288264e06f1467afee94
- Our copy
- u144_kor_file-down-do.pdf
- Original
- www.nabo.go.kr