2. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part arising from the defendant’s participation.

A. On June 15, 2010, the Defendant publicly announced the application for the designation of new technology with respect to the “C” applied by the Intervenor, etc. (hereinafter “instant technology”). The Defendant announced the content and scope of new technology and the submission of opinions thereon.

B. On July 14, 2010, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant technology is physically viable and requested on-site inspection to the E Association, which is an institution exclusively in charge of the examination of new electric technology. On August 10, 2010, the E Association sent the Intervenor’s written response to the said written opinion to the Plaintiff on August 10, 2010, and notified the schedule of the New Technology Examination Committee (hereinafter “Examination Committee”) for the instant technology to be held on August 24, 2010.

C. On August 24, 2010, the Plaintiff attended the Review Committee to present the Plaintiff’s opinion on the instant technology and requested on-site inspection. Members of the Review Committee consisting of nine experts related to electric technology, such as professors, patent attorneys, and the Director General of the Association Technology, who majored in electric engineering, etc., and among them, GF and the Korea Electric Power Research Institute G was included in the Korea Electric Power Corporation (hereinafter “Korea Electric Power Corporation”). D. On September 9, 2010, the Defendant designated and declared the instant technology as H as a new electric technology (hereinafter “instant disposition”), and the specific details are as follows.

H1. Name of new technology: The description and scope of new technology C (designated number D): The description of the status of the power distribution facilities processed by applying the algorithm to collect abnormal signals of the power distribution facilities and the identification of the status of the power distribution facilities using the system of experts;

2. Period for protecting new technology: Three years from the date of designation and public notice;

3. The details of the protection of new technology (the protection under Article 6-2 of the Electric Technology Management Act and Article 7-4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act) (the protection under Article 6-2 of the Electric Technology Management Act and Article 7-4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act), the person ordering the construction of electric facilities for which a request for the payment of new technology may be made to a person who uses a new technology, shall reflect the new technology in the design of the electric facilities that he/she implements, and the fact that a new technology developer may be allowed to participate in a process related to the new technology (which grounds for

2. Determination on the main defense of the Defendant and the Intervenor

A. The argument of the defendant and the intervenor

The disposition of this case is null and void, and the technology owned by the Plaintiff is not immediately designated as a new technology. Thus, the interest accrued to the Plaintiff due to the disposition of this case is nothing more than indirect and reflective damage. The Plaintiff is not entitled to seek nullification of the disposition of this case.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

Although the Plaintiff is not the other party to the instant disposition, if there are legal interests protected by the relevant laws and regulations and relevant Acts and subordinate statutes on the instant disposition, and if the Plaintiff’s legal interests were to have been infringed on by the instant disposition, the Plaintiff is entitled to receive a judgment of propriety by filing an appeal litigation against the instant disposition

1) According to Articles 1, 3, 4, and 6-2 of the Electric Technology Management Act (amended by Act No. 10911, Jul. 25, 201; hereinafter the same), the purpose of this Act is to improve the level of electric technology by facilitating research and development of electric technology, thereby contributing to public safety and national economic development. The Minister of Knowledge Economy imposes an obligation on the Minister of Knowledge Economy to establish a basic plan for the promotion of electric technology development, including the promotion and utilization of electric technology, guidance and fostering of electric technology research institutes and organizations, and financial support for the promotion of electric technology, and to guide and foster electric technology research and development institutes and organizations. Upon the application of the new electric technology, each provision provides that a person who has developed the new electric technology shall designate and notify the new electric technology as a new electric technology and grant a specified protection and benefit to the developer. The above provision seems to include the purpose of protecting individual, specific rights, or interests of the researchers of the new electric technology developed by the researchers, rather than merely a provision for public interest, such as the national economy

2) Article 6(2) and (3) of the Electric Technology Management Act, and Articles 7-2(2) and 7-4 of the Enforcement Decree of the said Act provide that the Minister of Knowledge Economy shall publicly notify the details of the technology claimed in his/her order to designate a new electric technology and shall seek opinions from interested parties. Upon receipt of a disposition to designate a new electric technology, a new technology developer may claim a user fee from a person who uses the technology. The Minister of Knowledge Economy may recommend the ordering person to use the new technology, such as the installation of a new power facility, and the ordering person so recommended shall

3) According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 11, 20, and 29 (including each number), and the fact-finding results and the overall purport of the oral argument about the E Association, it is acknowledged that the plaintiff supplied the aforementioned technology as new technology to the plaintiff before providing a device for diagnosis of power distribution lines using the ultra-frequency around May 2010. As seen above, the plaintiff presented his opinion as an interested party in the procedure for the instant disposition but issued the instant disposition, unlike the opinion, and the plaintiff applied for the designation of new power technology regarding power distribution method using equipment combining high-frequency and ultra-frequency signal. However, on November 26, 2012, the E Association did not obtain new and non-obviousness from the existing intervenors, including the instant technology, on the ground that it is difficult to view it as new and non-obviousness in comparison with the examination technology, video information analysis technology, and video information analysis technology, and thus, it constitutes a new technology that has not been determined as a new technology that is no longer protected by the plaintiff's obligation to use the new technology in the instant case.

4) Therefore, it is deemed that the Plaintiff has standing to seek nullification, etc. of the instant disposition. The above assertion by the Defendant and the Intervenor is without merit.

3. Judgment as to the main claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The core of this case’s technology is that it can be collected without having a wind impact on the vehicle at a speed of 30 kilometers per hour, and it is physically impossible. The Review Committee, for a short period of 20 minutes, sought explanations on the technology of this case and recognized the technology of this case as new power technology. The Intervenor was punished on the ground that he provided bribe to the former employees, and the instant disposition was deemed to have exercised influence on the Review Committee. As the former employees were deemed to have exercised the influence on the Review Committee, there was a defect in which such unlawful act was involved. Accordingly, the instant disposition constitutes an unlawful and obvious defect, and thus, it is null and void.

B. Determination

1) Since the instant disposition requires a high level of academic and professional judgment, if the Defendant had undergone a review of the Review Committee in accordance with statutes and the review criteria in rendering the instant disposition, such disposition cannot be deemed unlawful unless it is the case where the determination accordingly was based on factual basis or it is obvious that it deviates from the scope of discretionary authority, such as that it is significantly unfair under social norms. In addition, in order for the instant administrative disposition to be deemed null and void as a matter of course, its defect must be significant and apparent. The assertion and burden of proof as to the grounds for invalidation lies on the Plaintiff.

2) In light of the aforementioned facts and evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff’s evidence alone submitted by the Plaintiff has a defect in the instant disposition or that the defect is serious and obvious. The Plaintiff’s allegation in this part is without merit.

A) As stipulated in Article 7-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Electric Technology Management Act and Article 4 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, the Defendant publicly announced the main contents of the instant technology for at least 30 days, and collected opinions from interested parties, including the Plaintiff, and subsequently conducted the instant disposition through an examination by the examination committee, etc. operated by the Association. The Plaintiff had an opportunity to attend the examination committee and present their opinions. In the instant disposition procedure, the Plaintiff, who is an interested party, was not entitled to request on-site inspection to the examination committee, etc.

B) The Review Committee constituted nine experts, such as professors, patent attorneys, and the Director of the Technical Department of the Association, with professional knowledge in the instant technology, and determined the instant technology as new technology based on the professional judgment of examiners. In light of such circumstances, it is difficult to readily conclude that the instant technology is physically viable solely on the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, in light of the foregoing circumstances.

C) According to the written evidence Nos. 10 and 26 of the Intervenor’s evidence and the overall purport of oral argument, it is recognized that the Intervenor’s officers and employees were subject to criminal punishment by providing bribe to the Intervenor’s former executives and employees. However, as seen earlier, the Defendant and the exclusive institution responsible for determining whether the instant technical power technology was new, including one former employee and one affiliated researcher to the Review Committee, which directly deliberated on whether the instant technical power technology was new, but there is no circumstance to deem that the two former employees directly received a bribe or a bribe from the Intervenor. However, the remaining seven experts are non-related experts, and even if the Intervenor’s above misconduct concluded an agreement with the Korea War and led to improving the application of the instant technology, it is difficult to conclude that such circumstance had a critical impact on the judgment of whether the instant technical power technology had been determined, not just on the basis of the foregoing circumstances, but on the part of the Intervenor’s Association.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the plaintiff's primary claim is without merit.

4. Whether the conjunctive claim part among the instant lawsuit is legitimate

1) The Defendant and the Intervenor asserted that the part of the instant lawsuit, for which the period for filing the instant conjunctive claim has lapsed, is unlawful. According to the above facts of recognition, the instant disposition was rendered on September 9, 2010, and the record clearly reveals that the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on January 3, 2013, which was one year thereafter, and thus, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it was filed after the lapse of the period for filing the lawsuit as prescribed by Article 20(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act.

Since the Plaintiff did not provide the Plaintiff with materials to prove defects in the contents of the instant disposition until the time when the instant lawsuit was filed, the Plaintiff asserted that there exists a justifiable ground as provided by Article 20(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, but it is insufficient to view that allowing the Plaintiff to file a lawsuit for which the period of filing the lawsuit has lapsed solely on the grounds alleged by the Plaintiff is reasonable under social norms (see Supreme Court Decision 90Nu6521, Jun. 28, 191). Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is not accepted (see Supreme Court Decision 90Nu6521, Jun. 28, 1991). Furthermore, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant disposition should be revoked pursuant to Article 6-3 of the Electric Technology Management Act because the Intervenor was subjected to the instant disposition by unlawful means, such as offering bribe to the Plaintiff’s former executives and employees, (i) the Plaintiff filed a petition with the Defendant to revoke the instant disposition on the said ground). Article 6-3(1)1 of the Electric Technology Management Act provides that the Minister of Knowledge Economy may revoke the instant disposition.

3) The part of the conjunctive claim in the instant lawsuit is deemed as unlawful in any way.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's primary claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the conjunctive claim is dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jin-han

Judges Kim Jae-hwan

A person shall be appointed.