참여제한 및 환수 처분 취소청구
1. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant corrected by this court is dismissed.
2. The Plaintiff and the Plaintiff among the costs of lawsuit in this Court.
The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is identical to the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal of some of the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in paragraph (2) and the addition of judgment as stated in paragraph (3). As such, this shall be quoted pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. On two pages
【The subject of the above Convention” is the Defendant and the main institution E (hereinafter referred to as “E”).
) The participating institution was the Director of the Industry-Academic Cooperation Foundation for B University (the Plaintiff). On the 2nd page 9, the following shall be added:
【The above comprehensive opinion presented that the implementation of the second year project shall be reflected with the following contents, and its contents include “(i) need for effective inspection in conformity with the conditions for animal testing of anti-resistant infection and immunodeficiencydeficiency proposed by the Food and Drug Administration, ② consideration of the progress of the research, such as consultation with an effective expert, efficacy research team, etc. or the reinforcement of research team due to the lack of expertise, although there is a lack of expertise.” 2. See 11.
In the second year Convention, the Korea Transport University was added to a participating institution for the productive efficacy research, reflecting the comprehensive opinions of the results of the first year research and evaluation. On the second 2nd 16th 16th 2nd :
【The detailed reasons for the instant assessment include the following contents: ① (i) arbitrarily changed the original project objective and content from “voluntary saccine and air-resistant infection activation” to “accine and air-resistant saccine increase” without the application for the amendment of the Convention; (ii) changed from “accinvivo to air-urine and air-resistant therapy activation due to lack of saccinability and physiological efficacy; and (iii) as the competent managing agency recognizes that there is no lack of research and development time and physiological efficacy, it is difficult to develop the final target “acciny and air-resistant infection activation.”
E. The Plaintiff filed an objection on September 30, 2015, but the Defendant.