All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.

2. The Plaintiff’s total costs of litigation.

A. The Plaintiff is the president in charge of the affairs of A University. B is a professor working in the brain engineering department of A University and a graduate school, and B is the head of the project under the C Project Convention (the name of the project: C Project; the name of the project team: the cerebr Information Convergence Technology Research Bureau; the total project period: from December 1, 2008 to August 31, 2013; the project period of the relevant year: from September 1, 2012 to August 31, 2013; and the project cost of the relevant year: 1,732,00,000,000, and hereinafter referred to as “the project cost of the relevant year”).

The defendant is an incorporated foundation established under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning in accordance with the Korean Research Foundation Act, which provides support for academic and research and development activities.

B. From June 11, 2014 to July 21, 2014, the Board of Audit and Inspection investigated the date of examination of research equipment purchased in the course of national research and development projects since 201, which was managed by the Defendant during the period from June 11, 2014, and after July 21, 2014, the Board of Audit and Inspection: (a) recognized that, in relation to the purchase of the equipment in this case, B, the person in charge of the instant task, purchased the equipment in the amount of KRW 208,851,341 (hereinafter “the equipment in this case”), the actual cost of the equipment in this case should be appropriated; and (b) recognized research and development expenses only for the equipment purchased two months prior to the completion of the research and development task, and concluded that it was improper for the Defendant to treat the equipment in this case as the reasonable cost for the purchase of the equipment in this case.

Accordingly, the defendant decided not to recognize the amount equivalent to the purchase price of the equipment of this case, which was purchased at the end of the research task, as the execution of the project cost, and the amount equivalent to the purchase cost of the equipment of this case against the plaintiff on February 17, 2015.