2016Guhap52200 Disposition of restriction on participation and revocation of disposition of returning project costs

A

Minister of Oceans and Fisheries

July 7, 2016

September 29, 2016

1. The Defendant’s disposition of restricting participation in the Plaintiff on December 23, 2015, including six months (from December 2, 2015 to June 22, 2016) and 10,621,000 project cost is revoked.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details and details of the disposition;

A. In around 2010, the Defendant decided to carry out a “B project” (hereinafter “B project”) with the aim of managing marine islands and developing resources, focusing on the sea area of the Korean Peninsula, and designated the C Promotion Agency as a specialized institution to manage B projects, and designated the D Technology Institute as a main research institute.

On August 2012, the Plaintiff, as a researcher of the D Technology Institute, was appointed as a person in charge of research on B projects (1) and performed his duties.

B. On December 23, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition on the Plaintiff to recover KRW 10,621,000 for six months (from December 23, 2015 to June 22, 2016), on the ground of “violation of the provisions, such as voluntary change of a research officer,” pursuant to Article 11-2(1) of the former Framework Act on Science and Technology (amended by Act No. 13578, Dec. 22, 2015; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Article 61 of the Regulations on the Operation of Marine and Fisheries Research and Development Projects (hereinafter referred to as the “Operation Regulations”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings;

On January 14, 2015, the Director General of the D Technology Institute: (a) cancelled the Plaintiff from the head of the B B project team in advance or without prior notice; and (b) cancelled the Plaintiff from the member of the B project supervisor and the Construction Promotion Committee to be appointed the Plaintiff as a member of the B project supervisor and the Construction Promotion Committee; and (c) made the Plaintiff impossible to carry out the B project. The Plaintiff did not cooperate with the measures of the D Technology Center, and instead requested the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries and the C Promotion Agency to take appropriate measures by actively notifying the Plaintiff of such circumstances. Accordingly, the instant disposition is not recognized.

3. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. The defendant's argument

The other party to the disposition to recover the B Project cost is not the Plaintiff but the Director of the Korea Technology Institute, the head of which is the main research institute. Moreover, the Director of the Korea Technology Institute has returned the project cost of KRW 10,621,00 to the Defendant, and there is no legal interest in seeking

B. Determination

1) Article 11-2(1) of the former Framework Act on Science and Technology provides that “The head of a central administrative agency may recover all or part of the project funds already contributed or subsidized from a person in charge of research and development who participated in a national research and development project under his/her jurisdiction in any of the following cases.” Article 61(9) of the instant operational regulations provides that “The Minister shall notify the fact that a decision on restriction on participation is made and the amount recovered pursuant to Article 11-2(1) of the Framework Act on Science and Technology and the head of the agency so notified shall transfer the relevant amount to a specialized agency within 30

2) In light of the following circumstances, the party to the disposition taken to recover project costs is the Plaintiff, and therefore, the Plaintiff is legally interested in seeking revocation of the instant disposition.

A) Article 11-2(1) of the former Framework Act on Science and Technology clearly states that the counterpart to the redemption disposition can be a person in charge of research.

B) Comprehensively taking account of the evidence No. 1 and evidence No. 14 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the instant disposition (Evidence No. 1): The Plaintiff, the content of sanctions: 6 months of restriction on participation and recovery of project costs (won 10,621,00) are stated in the instant disposition (Evidence No. 1). The C Promotion Agency may recognize that the Plaintiff requested the payment of KRW 10,621,00 for the amount subject to redemption of project costs related to the disposition of B business sanctions on January 5, 2016.

C) The request of the CIT president to deposit the amount to be recovered by the Plaintiff is merely based on Article 61(9) of the Operational Rule of this case, and such circumstance alone does not necessarily mean that the other party to the disposition is a DNA technical source. In addition, even if the DIT paid the amount to be recovered by the Plaintiff, it may claim for the payment of the amount to be recovered by the Plaintiff later, and thus, the Plaintiff has legal interest in seeking the revocation of the disposition of this case

4. Judgment on the merits

A. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

B. Facts of recognition

1) From April 27, 2010 to November 30, 2016, the project is a project to build E by inserting approximately KRW 100 billion of the total project cost, and the STX Shipbuilding Korea participates as a shipbuilding company and carries out frighting.

2) On December 30, 2010, D Technology Institute entered into an agreement with C Promotion Agency and the first business year period.2) D Technology Institute issued the Plaintiff around August 2012 (in the process of the third business year, during the second business year), to the head of the Gu in charge of B business and the head of B business, and the Plaintiff has been performing B business from that time.

3) In order to efficiently implement research and achieve research objectives, the supervising research officer shall perform duties, such as preparing a research and development plan, preparing a research and development project plan, determining the contents and implementation methods of the research and development project, determining the selection of participating researchers, selecting and managing research and development funds, (4) coordinating and managing research and development funds, (5) evaluating participating researchers and allocating incentives, (7) reporting on the outcomes of research and development (including the outcomes of research and development conducted by collaborative research institutes, joint research institutes, and entrusted research institutes),

On the other hand, a person in charge of the research on the other hand shall obtain approval from the head of a specialized institution only where (1) the person in charge of the research on the other hand is dismissed or deceased; (2) the person in charge of the research on the other hand is unable to conduct a direct research on the other hand for at least six months due to a disease, long-term overseas business trip, dispatch, etc.; (3) the inevitable change in personnel affairs has occurred due to a large-scale restructuring; (4) the person in charge of the research on the other hand has faithfully performed the task; and (5)

4) On January 14, 2015, the Director of the Korea Technology Institute: (a) cancelled the Plaintiff’s appointment as the Director of the B Project Center; (b) issued geological and physical research headquarters to the Plaintiff; and (c) took measures to appoint G as the Director of the Research Center in charge of the instant project; and (d) proposed that the Plaintiff is appointed as the Director of the Korea Technology Institute in charge of the instant project; and (b) appointed the Plaintiff as the Director of the General in charge of the Project and the Director of the Construction Promotion Committee. From around that time, the Plaintiff performed only the duties of approving the execution of research funds as the Director of the Research Center

5) On February 24, 2015, the Plaintiff was at the position of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries and the C Promotion Agency (“Plaintiff”) to be exempted from the head of the BB project by a personnel order issued on January 14, 2015, and at the same time, the content of the project cannot be known and cannot be expressed. While the status of the person in charge of the pertinent research project cost account is maintained, the Plaintiff simply grants approval for the business travel expenses and project expenses of the project participants in a situation where the status of the person in charge of the pertinent research project is unknown, but the status of the person in charge of the pertinent research project cost account cannot be known. Even if the person in charge of the research is not working as the person in charge of the research, it is extremely difficult to say that the person in charge of the research should be responsible for the maintenance of the status. The e-mail

6) On March 10, 2015, C Promotion Agency: (a) conducted on-site inspections to identify the status of performance of tasks following the personnel movement of a person in charge of research management; and (b) on March 16, 2015, the C Promotion Agency notified the Director of D Technology to the effect that “it is necessary to take follow-up measures so that the person in charge of research management may perform his/her role under Article 15(2) of the instant operating regulations, so that he/she would be informed of the results of follow-up measures by March 27, 2015.”

7) On March 27, 2015, the D Institute notified the C Promotion Agency of the result of the measure that “I will act as a main research institute to enable a person in charge of the management and research of the B project to perform his/her duties,” but did not actually return the Plaintiff to the main research institute.

8) While performing the duties of approving the execution of research expenses, the Plaintiff applied for the payment of KRW 10,621,000 for his/her research allowances in relation to the B business on April 6, 2015.

9) On April 8, 2015, the Plaintiff sent e-mail a 5th interim evaluation publication data containing the following contents to the person in charge of C Promotion, and at the time of the interim evaluation meeting on April 10, 2015, the Plaintiff presented an opinion that “at the time of the interim evaluation meeting on April 10, 2015, the head of C Promotion Agency shall be in charge of all the powers and responsibilities as a person in charge of research as long

On January 14, 2015, the head of the B project team is replaced and the current manager (Plaintiff) has no authority to access all decision-making processes related to the B project because he/she moved to another department by a personnel order and moves to another department is a situation in which the responsibility for the B project is unclear and further it is likely to lead to research non-performance.It is not desirable that the current person in charge of the project maintains his/her current status in the situation remaining for 8 months until the building is completed and delivered.Therefore, it is judged that it is desirable that the current person in charge of the project will carry out the research project as a person in charge of the research project after ascertaining the current construction progress.

10) Even if the Institute did not obtain the consent of the Plaintiff to enter into the sixth B Project in 2015, on May 1, 2015, it submitted to the CPromotion Agency a person in charge of research on the annual (stage) performance plan for the sixth B Project as the Plaintiff on May 1, 2015 and arbitrarily affixed his/her seal to the Plaintiff.

11) On May 6, 2015, the Plaintiff sent the following e-mail to the person in charge of C Promotion Agency:

After being exempted from the position of the head of the B project group, the head of the project group is currently unable to participate in any decision-making related to the B, and it is directly made by the head of the project group after receiving all reports related to the B.The author judged that the present system has a lot of problems and maintenance of the present situation due to the nature of the project, which is not desirable, and that this idea has been expressed in many ways several times.The final conclusion that the proposal was made by the public has already been made by the plaintiff, including the status of the project manager. He cannot hold the status of the person in charge of the research project in the sixth year.It is impossible for him to exercise the authority and responsibility as a research officer.It is not only so it is not possible to exercise the authority and responsibility as a research officer, and it is not possible to participate as a person in charge of the project in the formal approval process or other procedures.

12) On May 13, 2015, D Technology Institute requested approval, even though it failed to obtain the approval, when it submitted a draft change from the Plaintiff to G to the Research Institute in charge of B projects (six projects, May 1, 2015 to November 30, 2016).

13) When entering into the six projects agreement with the CPromotion Agency on June 4, 2015 (the research period between May 1, 2015 and January 11, 2016) with the C Promotion Agency (the research period between May 1, 2015 and November 30, 2016) and the Plaintiff as not G. 14), the Plaintiff sent a note requesting explanation to the person in charge of the six projects on June 10, 2015. However, the D Promotion Agency did not respond to this. In addition, on June 26, 2015, the Plaintiff was aware of the fact that “the Plaintiff was aware of the fact that it was a person in charge of the e-mail, and that it was not aware of the fact that it was a person in charge of the e-mail from the signing of the B projects agreement, and that it was not aware of the fact that it was a person in charge of the e-mail in the context of the agreement.”

15) On July 2015, the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries conducted an audit of the Institute of D Technology, and then prepared and notified the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology of the following matters:

In the absence of the approval of the change of the director in charge of research by the C&D president, the director in charge of research is required to take measures against the director in charge of research and development projects, such as arbitrarily changing the director in charge of research and development.In the implementation of the B project, the director in charge of research and development projects is required to take measures against the director in charge of research and development projects, such as arbitrarily changing the director in charge of research and development, and neglecting the director in charge of research and development projects to arbitrarily change the director in violation of the relevant provisions.In the implementation of the B project, the director in charge of research and development projects, in violation of the relevant provisions, and neglected the director in charge of research and development projects to take measures against the director in charge of research and development projects without the consent of the director in charge of research and development and to take measures against the director in charge of research and development projects.In addition, even if the director in charge of research and development projects did not approve the change of

16) On August 10, 2015, the Korea Technology Institute notified the Plaintiff of the following:

(a) Results of civil petition investigation or measures taken;

A person shall be appointed.

17) On July 3, 2015, D Technology Institute issued a personnel order to return the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff as the head of B project, B project overall supervisor, and members of the Construction Promotion Committee.

18) On July 7, 2015, the Plaintiff sent the following e-mail to the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries and the C Promotion Agency.

Since the past year, D Technology Institute should be a research officer in charge of B projects, and the 6th B Project Convention was known to the Plaintiff as a research officer in charge of B projects.However, on June 8, 2015, the Plaintiff came to know that D Technology Institute created a 6th B Project Agreement without the Plaintiff's prior approval, and entered into it with D Technology Institute as a research officer in charge of the Plaintiff.However, upon the inspection of D Technology Institute conducted by the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, D Technology issued a personnel order to return the Plaintiff to the research officer in charge of the management in order to avoid the responsibility for the illegal measures of the head of the institution.The Plaintiff cannot be a research officer in charge of B projects and the status of the head of the B Project Bureau could not be fulfilled.

19) On November 20, 2015, the C&D president notified the C&D president that he/she would submit a written objection to the C&D Development Office within 14 days from the date of receipt of the notification, along with the following deliberation results:

(b) the results of the review;

20) On December 2, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an objection to the outcome of the said deliberation on the ground that “The Institute has faithfully performed its duties as a supervising research manager, and the payment of research allowances is not unfair.”

However, on December 8, 2015, D Institute of Technology took measures related to objections with the following contents:

A. In light of the content of the notification of the results of civil investigation by the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries related to the filing of objections, the Defendant’s on-site inspection results, etc., the Plaintiff did not perform its duty as a supervising research officer. While the Plaintiff implemented the payment of research allowances as a supervising research officer pursuant to Article 7 of the Guidelines for Payment of Research Allowances, it is an act contrary to the Plaintiff’s opinion that the role has been restricted during the pertinent period.Although the Plaintiff requested consultation on December 3, 2015 on the filing of objections, it would not be present at the meeting.Therefore, the Plaintiff’s objection will not be raised as the grounds for filing of objections are

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 2-7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 16, 17, 18, 21 (including virtual numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul 3-6, 17, and 18 are the whole purport of arguments and arguments. Whether the disposition of this case is legitimate or not.

1) The grounds for the instant disposition are stated in the instant disposition (Evidence No. 1) as “Article 11-2 of the former Framework Act on Science and Technology, and Article 61 of the instant provision,” based on the instant disposition. Meanwhile, the “written request for disposition as a result of the audit of civil petitions by the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries (Evidence No. 16-2)” stated that “a false research and development project violates Article 61(1)7 of the Operational Rule, and a research and development project was improperly promoted by deceiving C Promotion Agency, etc. as a result of the implementation of research and development projects by the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries.” In addition, the C Promotion Agency’s “A Promotion Agency” stated that “the Plaintiff is liable for a certain portion in light of Article 61(1)8 of the instant provision.”

In light of the above circumstances, the defendant is deemed to have violated the provisions of Article 11-2 (1) 7 of the former Framework Act on Science and Technology (the case where research and development is conducted by false or other unlawful means) and Article 11-2 (1) 8 of the former Framework Act on Science and Technology (the case where it is inappropriate to conduct national research and development projects and where the provisions of the agreement are violated) and the disposition in this case was rendered

2) Whether the grounds for the instant disposition can be recognized

In full view of the following circumstances (recognized or determined matters) that were recognized as above or through the overall purport of the statements and arguments by evidence Nos. 17 and 19, the Plaintiff’s act of arbitrarily changing the person in charge of research, etc. shall not be deemed to have violated the provisions of the Convention, where the Plaintiff’s act of performing research and development by fraud or other improper means or inappropriate to carry out national research and development projects.

A) On January 14, 2015, the D Institute changed a person in charge of research from the Plaintiff to G without obtaining the approval of the CPromotion Institute’s president, and cancelled the appointment of a person in charge of research from the Plaintiff as the head of the B Project. On February 24, 2015, the director in charge of general supervision of B Project and the members of the Construction Promotion Committee was dismissed, and the Plaintiff performed only the approval for the execution of the B Project. However, this is made by the unilateral appointment of the D Technology Institute without obtaining the Plaintiff’s prior consent and consultation, and the Plaintiff, a researcher belonging thereto, was bound to follow it. Therefore, the Plaintiff did not have to perform the duties of managing the B Project without any choice but only take charge of obtaining approval for the execution of the research funds requested by G.

B) On February 24, 2015, when the Plaintiff was unable to perform its duties as a person in charge of the actual management of B business, the Plaintiff notified the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries and the C Promotion Agency of the fact that “the Plaintiff is unable to perform its duties as a person in charge of the research on January 14, 2015.” Accordingly, C Promotion Agency notified the Director of D Technology that “it is necessary to take follow-up measures to enable the person in charge of the research to perform his duties for the smooth implementation of the business.” However, D Technology Institute did not return the Plaintiff to the person in charge of the management.”

C) Although the Plaintiff stated to the D Technology Institute that it will not be responsible for the supervising research in the sixth B projects in 2015, D Technology Institute as a person in charge of the annual performance plan for the sixth B projects in 2015, on May 1, 2015, and submitted his/her seal to C Promotion Institute by arbitrarily affixing his/her seal. In addition, D Technology Institute concluded the sixth B projects in 2015 with C Promotion Institute on June 4, 2015, even if it did not consent to the conclusion of the sixth B projects by the Plaintiff, even if it did not consent to the conclusion of the agreement from the Plaintiff, it concluded the sixth B projects in 2015.

D) It is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff cooperates with or impliedly cooperates in performing the duties of a person in charge of research in charge of research in the B project. The reasons are as follows.

(1) On April 8, 2015, the Plaintiff sent e-mail to the person in charge of C Promotion, “the Plaintiff has no authority to access all decision-making processes related to B project by means of a personnel order, which may make it clear whether the Plaintiff is responsible for the B project and be likely to cause any defect in research.” At the announcement around April 10, 2015, the Plaintiff presented e-mail to the person in charge of C Promotion, stating that “the materials for cross-evaluation among the 5th B projects, including the content that “the materials for inter-evaluation shall be identified, and that “the head of C Promotion Agency shall be in charge of all the powers and responsibilities as the person in charge of the project as a person in charge of the research in charge of the management”

(2) On June 10, 2015, the Plaintiff sent an e-mail indicating that “D Technology Institute entered into an agreement with the Plaintiff as a person in charge of research on the sixth B projects in 2015.” On June 26, 2015, the Plaintiff sent e-mail to the person in charge of research on the six-year B projects, stating that “the Plaintiff shall not consent to the Plaintiff as a person in charge of research on the six-year B projects.”

E) On July 3, 2015, D Technology Institute issued a personnel order to return the Plaintiff to B as the manager of B, and the Plaintiff refused such order. However, D Technology Institute, on January 14, 2015, notified the Plaintiff to the C Promotion Institute that it would cancel the appointment of the manager of the research institute in charge, and that C Promotion Institute would withdraw the appointment of the Plaintiff to the manager of the research institute, and notified the Plaintiff to the C Promotion Institute that it would return the Plaintiff to the manager of the research institute, but did not actually return the Plaintiff to the manager of the research institute. D Technology was to enter into an agreement with the Plaintiff on June 6, 2015, which was the manager of the research institute in charge of B. However, D Technology did not comply with the agreement with the Plaintiff on June 4, 2015, which was the manager of the research institute in charge of B, and concluded the B Convention on June 6, 2015, which was the manager of the research institute in charge of the research institute in charge of G.

F) According to the evidence No. 7, on June 2, 2015, the C Promotion Agency sent to the Plaintiff an e-mail with the content of the 6th annual performance plan for the 6th project in 2015. However, the Plaintiff did not know the content thereof and sent the e-mail to the J (B) immediately, and the J sent the e-mail with the annual performance plan that reflects the revision to the C Promotion Agency. Thus, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have been involved in the 6th project in 2015.

D. Sub-committee

Since the grounds for the instant disposition are not recognized, the instant disposition is unlawful.

5. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is justified and accepted.

The presiding judge, senior judge;

Judges Gambling Residents

Judges Kim Gin-han

1) The term “managing research institute” means an institution in charge of a research and development task of national research and development projects and a person in charge of research;

It is a person in charge of overall control over research and development tasks performed by an institution.

2) Unless there are special circumstances, national research and development projects required for several years shall be divided into multi-years and performed after setting the goals for each year.

shall evaluate the results of each research year and determine whether to continue to provide support according to the results thereof, and the following year agreement shall be concluded.

It is carried out in the way of partnership.

3) As to this, the Defendant asserts to the effect that Article 11-2(1)5 of the former Framework Act on Science and Technology is a ground for the instant disposition.

However, Article 11-2 (1) 5 of the former Framework Act on Science and Technology (where research and development costs are used for any purpose other than the original purpose) and the instant case

Related to Article 42(5) [Attached Table 5] 1(f) of the Operating Rules (the amount paid to the Institute that did not participate in the research and development tasks)

Basic facts are identical to those related to Article 11-2 (1) 7 and 8 of the Framework Act on Science and Technology.

As it is impossible to file a petition, it shall be deemed that any addition cannot be made on the grounds or reasons of the instant disposition.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.