2. B

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. The Plaintiff A University Industry-Academic Cooperation Foundation (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff Industry-Academic Cooperation Foundation”) is a corporation established under the former Industrial Education Promotion and Industry-Academic Cooperation Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 7869 of March 3, 2006), Plaintiff B is a natural institution that vicariously executes national research and development projects under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Science, ICT and Future Planning pursuant to Article 11 of the Framework Act on Science and Technology as a corporation established pursuant to the Research Foundation Act.

B. On January 16, 2013, the Defendant publicly announced the support program for middle-standing researchers in the year 2013 and publicly recruited new tasks.

C. On February 19, 2013, Plaintiff Industry-Academic applied for a new task as the research task called “C” (hereinafter referred to as the “research task in this case”) by designating the person in charge of the research as Plaintiff B, and the Defendant selected the research task in this case as the subject of support.

D. On June 1, 2013, the Plaintiff Industry-Academic Group and the Defendant entered into an agreement on the research and development task of the instant research task (hereinafter referred to as the “Convention 2013”) and the main contents thereof are as follows: (i) Convention Research and development cost for the first year (the pertinent year); (ii) Government contributions amounting to KRW 303,00,000 for the second year; (iii) 303,00,000,000 for the third year; and (iii) total research and development period of KRW 909,000 for the third year: from June 1, 2013 to May 31, 2016:

3) Research period of the Multi-year Convention: From June 1, 2013 to June 5, 2016, 31.

4) The research period of the relevant agreement for the relevant year: From June 1, 2013 to June 2014, 5, 31.

5) A senior research officer: Plaintiff B

E. On June 1, 2014, the Plaintiff Industry-Academic Group and the Defendant entered into an agreement on the research and development task of the instant research task (hereinafter referred to as the “Convention 2014”). The main contents are as follows: (i) Convention Research and development cost: Government contributions of KRW 303,00,000 in the first year of the second year (the relevant year), KRW 303,000,000 in the second year (the relevant year), total research and development period of KRW 909,000 in the third year: from June 1, 2013 to June 5, 2016;

3) Research period of the Multi-year Convention: From June 1, 2013 to May 31, 2016

4) The research period of the relevant agreement for the relevant year: From June 1, 2014 to May 31, 2015

5) A senior research officer: Plaintiff B

F. Article 26(3) of the Convention of 2013 provides that “The Defendant may recover the full amount of research expenses excluding personnel expenses paid according to the results of the assessment if the Plaintiff B selected as the head of the Research Institute for Basic Science (including outside research teams) or the head of the research group, etc. within one year from the first date of commencement of the research.” Article 26(3) of the Convention of 2014 provides that “The Defendant may, in principle, recognize the transfer of the Plaintiff B to another project, such as the head of the Research Institute for Basic Science, group group group group group group group group group group group group group group group group group group group group group group group group group group group group group group group group group group group group group group group group group group group group group group group group group group group group group group group group group group group group group group group group group group group group group group group group group group group group group group group group group group, etc.

G. Around November 1, 2014, Plaintiff B was selected as the head of the Research Institute for Basic Science and Technology to conduct a research on the Basic Science Research Institute.

H. On December 11, 2014, the Defendant cancelled the agreement with the Plaintiff’s Industry-Academic Group on the grounds of the Plaintiff’s violation of the Convention (Suspension of Research following the Movement of Basic Science Research Institute) and recovered the Plaintiffs’ research and development expenses paid for the instant research task, and the Plaintiffs’ participation in national research and development projects for two years from September 201 to December 8, 2016 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

I. On December 11, 2014, the Plaintiffs notified the instant disposition, and filed an objection against the Defendant on December 16, 2014 (hereinafter “instant objection”). On March 13, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiffs that the instant objection was dismissed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

The instant disposition is unlawful on the grounds of the violation of the principle of trust protection and the principle of proportionality.

3. Judgment on the Defendant’s main defense

1) The Defendant asserts that the instant lawsuit was unlawful as it was filed after the lapse of the filing period.

On the other hand, Article 20 of the Administrative Litigation Act provides that a revocation lawsuit shall be filed within 90 days from the date on which the disposition, etc. is known, and the facts that the disposition in this case was made on December 11, 2014 and notified to the plaintiffs on the same day are as seen earlier, and the facts that the lawsuit in this case was filed on March 30, 2015, after the elapse of 90 days from the lawsuit in this case are apparent in the records. Therefore, the lawsuit in this case was filed after the lapse of the period for filing the lawsuit in this case, and the defendant's assertion is illegal

2) As to this, the Plaintiffs asserted to the effect that the instant lawsuit filed within 90 days from the date on which they became aware that the instant objection was dismissed, since they had gone through the procedures for raising an objection against the instant disposition.

Article 11-2 (1) of the former Framework Act on Science and Technology (amended by Act No. 12869, Dec. 30, 2014) provides that "the head of a central administrative agency may restrict the participation of national research and development projects under his/her jurisdiction, and may recover all or part of the project expenses already contributed or subsidized, if any of the following applies to the institutions, organizations, enterprises, persons in charge of research and development, researchers, or executives or employees belonging to such institutions, organizations, etc.: Provided, That Article 27 (5) of the former Regulations on the Management, etc. of National Research and Development Projects (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26729, Dec. 22, 2015) provides that "the head of a central administrative agency shall organize and operate a sanctions evaluation group to deliberate on matters concerning restrictions on participation and recovery of project expenses under Article 11-2 (1) of the Framework Act on Science and Technology," and Article 11-2 (6) provides that "the head of a central administrative agency may operate a system of a central administrative agency."

Although the facts that the plaintiffs filed the objection in this case before the filing of the lawsuit in this case are as seen earlier, the procedure of filing the objection in this case is not based on the law, but merely a procedure that allows the defendant to review the legitimacy and validity of the disciplinary measure, etc. by himself/herself, and there is no ground to regard it as a general administrative appeal under the Administrative Appeals Act or a special administrative appeal prescribed by other Acts as particularly necessary in order to consider the specialty and specificity of the case. Therefore, the special exception of the period of filing the lawsuit in this case cannot be applied to the objection in this case where it has undergone an administrative appeal prescribed by the Administrative Litigation Act. Thus, the period of filing the lawsuit in this case cannot be calculated from the date when the plaintiffs received the notification of the result of filing the objection in this case (see Supreme Court Decisions 2013Du10809, Apr. 24, 2014; 2010Du8676, Nov. 15, 2012). Therefore, the above plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is decided to dismiss it. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Cho Hon

Judges Kim Gin-han

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.