사업참여제한 등 처분 취소 청구
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.
3. The Defendant on December 20, 2016.
1. The grounds for admitting and amending the judgment of the court of first instance are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the part of the judgment of first instance No. 11, No. 11, No. 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance is used as follows, and thus, they are cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
[Article 42 (1) 2 of the Regulations on the Development of Environmental Technology provides that "The plaintiff shall not apply to this case where self-plagiarism is at issue, since Article 42 (1) 2 of the Regulations on the Management of Environmental Technology Development Projects provides that "any other person's research and development data or research and development outcomes are plagiarism."
Article 42(1)2 of the former Operational Rule provides that “plagiarism of another person’s research and development data or research and development outcomes, etc. to use them for research and development data or research and development outcomes, etc.” (Article 42(1)2 of the former Operational Rule, however, Article 42(1)2 of the former Operational Rule after the amendment of December 23, 2014, provides that “The act of plagiarism research and development data or research and development outcomes, etc. conducted by a researcher or another person to use them for research and development data or research and development outcomes, etc.” (Article 42(1)2 of the former Operational Rule).
Meanwhile, the fact that the Plaintiff prepared and submitted the instant report on February 27, 2015 is as seen earlier. As such, whether research misconduct exists in relation to the preparation of the instant report should be determined in accordance with Article 42(1)2 of the Operating Rules after the amendment.
(ii) the Act;
2. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim against the disposition restricting the participation in the business of this case shall be accepted for reasonable grounds, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed for lack of reasonable grounds.
The judgment of the first instance is just in conclusion.