The judgment of the first instance, including the plaintiff's claim added by this Court, shall be modified as follows:

In this case.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for partial revision as follows. Thus, this is acceptable as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

6 15 to 7 pages shall be dried up to the following:

“3. The Plaintiff asserts that the notice of this case is unlawful, and the Plaintiff primarily seeks revocation on the premise that the notice of this case constitutes a disposition subject to appeal, and the Plaintiff seeks confirmation of the non-existence of the obligation to return KRW 8,842,450 for research and development expenses incurred by the notice of this case.”

4. Judgment on the main claim

A. The Defendant’s notice of this case’s main defense is not a notification of the redemption disposition of government contributions based on Article 11-2 of the former Framework Act on Science and Technology, but merely, it merely notifies the Plaintiff of the result of settlement of relevant project costs for the purpose of collecting the amount unduly executed pursuant to the instant agreement, etc. after the completion of research and development. As such, the instant notice cannot be deemed an administrative disposition that is the subject of appeal litigation as an exercise

“9.The following shall be added to the 20th day after the 20th day:

A. Since the Defendant’s main agent to whom KRW 8,842,450 of research and development expenses accrued from the Defendant’s notification of this case is not the Defendant is the Republic of Korea, it is unlawful to seek confirmation of non-existence against the Defendant who is not the Defendant.

B. 1) Determination 1) In the case of a party suit that is a party suit that is a dispute over the legal relationship itself under public law, the State, public organizations and other rights holders who are one party to the legal relationship have standing to be the defendant pursuant to Article 3 subparag. 2 and Article 39 of the Administrative Litigation Act. However, in full view of relevant provisions, the defendant