정산금
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1.The following facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or may be admitted by adding together the whole purport of the pleadings to each entry in Gap evidence of 1 to 7, Eul evidence of 1 to 4, and evidence of 7 (including the number; hereinafter the same shall apply).
From October 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015, the Plaintiff is an institution exclusively responsible for the transfer of affairs related to the project for industrial technology innovation (E) under the Industrial Technology Innovation Promotion Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Industrial Technology Innovation Act") from the Korea Evaluation Institute of Industrial Technology from October 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015, and the Defendant is a company that is
B. As to the above task, an annual agreement (from June 1, 2014 to August 31, 2015, and the period from September 1, 2015 to August 31, 2016) was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant (hereinafter “instant agreement”) with the exclusively responsible agency (the Korea Evaluation Institute of Industrial Technology, the Plaintiff), and the Defendant, etc., as the main contents of the second agreement concluded on November 24, 2015 (hereinafter “instant agreement”). The main contents of the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant are as stated in [attached Form 1]. The main contents of the operating guidelines and project cost guidelines referred to in the instant agreement are as stated in [Attachment Form 2] and [Attachment 3] Guidelines for Operation.”
C. The Defendant received contributions from the exclusive institution (Korea Evaluation Institute of Industrial Technology and the Plaintiff) during each agreement period in accordance with the annual agreement, including the instant agreement, and disbursed project costs, such as research facilities and equipment and material costs.
However, on September 2, 2016, the Plaintiff rendered a decision on “suspension (faithy)” as to the above task pursuant to Article 32-3(2) and (3) of the Operating Guidelines on the grounds that the second annual evaluation of the above task was that “the process of approving commercialization is uncertain and the part of research and development was performed as a substitute for the market goods” and notified the Defendant on September 7, 2016.
E. Next, the Plaintiff settled the actual use of the project cost during the second agreement period and around January 17, 2017.