(영문) 서울행정법원 2019.4.18. 선고 2018구합54347 판결

A disposition that the defendant selected each incorporated association C as an institution to assess the certification of new technology and new products as B.

Reasons

1. Circumstances and details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is an incorporated foundation established on December 1, 2017 for the purpose of performing support projects related to the certification of industrial technology. The Defendant is delegated with the authority of an evaluation institute to designate new technology and new technology certification pursuant to Article 44 of the Industrial Technology Innovation Promotion Act (hereinafter “Industrial Technology Act”) and Article 57(1)20 of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Technology Act (hereinafter “evaluation institute”) as the representative of the National Technical Standard Institute, which is an overall agency in charge of standard policy affairs under the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy.

B. The certification system of new technology and new products under the Industrial Technology Act is to promote innovation of industrial technology and strengthen industrial competitiveness by providing benefits, such as initial support for the development of market distribution, to the products with excellent performance and quality, among the products that have been completed by applying the said new technology as core technology and have been commercialized by the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy (Article 15-2). The certification system of new technology and new products under the Industrial Technology Act is to promote innovation of industrial technology and strengthen industrial competitiveness (hereinafter referred to as "certification system of new technology and new products").

C. According to Article 57(6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Establishment and Operational Guidelines of Institutions for Evaluation, etc. related to the Certification of New Technology and New Products (hereinafter referred to as the "Operational Guidelines") pursuant to Article 3 of the Guidelines for the Designation and Operation of Institutions for Evaluation of New Technology and New Products (hereinafter referred to as the "Operational Guidelines"), the Defendant registered the Public Offering Project as a "Public Offering Project" in 2017, which is the Integrated Subsidy Management Network (hereinafter referred to as the "Subsidy Management System"), and posted a public notice stating that the application for the designation of an evaluation institution is d-E (limited to the arrival within the submission deadline) and the application method: the receipt of the subsidy management system and the receipt of mail or direct receipt through the National Technical Standard Institute Certification Industry Promotion (hereinafter referred to as the "Public Notice of this case").

D. In response to the instant public notice, the Plaintiff, an incorporated association C (hereinafter referred to as “C”), and F (hereinafter referred to as “F”) received the application with respect to the designation of a new technology certification evaluation agency, and only C received the application for the designation of a new technology certification evaluation agency at the last day of the submission deadline.

E. As the Defendant did not reach multiple applicants regarding the designation of a new technology certification evaluation institute, the Defendant publicly announced the “republic offering of new technology certification evaluation institute” on the G date’s website (hereinafter “republic announcement”). The key contents of the re-public announcement in this case are GH 18:00 (limited to the date of arrival within the deadline for submission), the method of filing an application: by mail or direct receipt as the National Technical Standard Institute Certification Industry Promotion Department. C received an application for designation of each new technology certification evaluation institute on the H date. Meanwhile, the Defendant modified the “application method” among the contents of the public announcement posted on the Defendant’s website: receipt of subsidy management system and the “post or direct receipt” to the “application method”: (i) receipt of the subsidy management system, mail or direct receipt by the National Technical Standard Institute Certification Industry Promotion Department; and (ii) direct receipt by mail or mail.

F. On January 15, 2018, the Defendant followed the procedure for selecting a new product certification evaluation agency for the Plaintiff, C, and F and the procedure for selecting the Plaintiff and C as an evaluation agency for new technology certification. On January 15, 2018, the Defendant selected C as an evaluation agency for new technology certification and new technology certification (hereinafter “instant disposition”);

[Ground for recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 7, 8, 9, 13 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 11, 12, 13, 24, 25, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. The plaintiff;

1) The Defendant committed the following procedural illegality in the course of carrying out the instant public contest project, which cannot be cured against the mandatory provisions. Thus, the instant disposition must be revoked due to procedural defects.

A) The Defendant posted the instant re-public offering on the national technical standard website only and did not register it on the subsidy management system. The matters concerning the selection, operation, etc. of an evaluation institute are subject to the Subsidy Act, and the Defendant’s operation guidelines prescribed upon delegation by superior statutes, the Guidelines for Integration of National Subsidies from the Ministry of Strategy and Finance under the Subsidy Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Integrated Guidelines”), and the Guidelines for Operation and Management of National Subsidies from the Ministry of Strategy and Finance (hereinafter referred to as the “Guidelines for Operation and Management Guidelines”) are binding as supplementary administrative rules. According to the relevant provisions, not only the instant public announcement but also the posting of the re-public announcement must be made through the subsidy management system. In light of the structure of the relevant regulations and the developments leading up to the establishment of the subsidy management system, this is a mandatory provision for the transparent payment of subsidies and securing the fairness of the procedures, and thus, the instant public offering project is seriously defective that has omitted the essential procedures contrary

B) In addition, the Defendant deleted the previous notice of “the receipt of the subsidy management system” and “the National Technical Standard Board,” and received the application through the National Technical Standards Board, other than the subsidy management system. The applicant is only the Plaintiff, and C and F received the subsidy management system and the National Technical Standards Board by not only through the subsidy management system, but also through the National Technical Standards Board. The procedural illegality is significant since C and F received only the National Technical Standards Board, not through the subsidy management system. In other words, the public notice of this case was conducted as the object of the examination without the applicant’s qualification in violation of the relevant statutes, such as Article 26-2(2) of the Subsidy Act, which is a mandatory provision, and the final selection of C as the evaluation institute.

2) To establish a fair and transparent certification system, expertise and independence of the evaluation institute must be maintained, and Article 57(6)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Technology Act explicitly requires the independence of the evaluation institute. However, Article 57(6)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Technology Act explicitly demands the independence of the evaluation institute. However, inasmuch as a corporate association has an enterprise subject to new technology certification as a member, conflicts of interest, and fails to fully secure independence by providing consulting services for certification support to a company excluded from new technology certification. Each of the instant dispositions in the instant case is clear, since each of the instant dispositions lacks the intent of the system, and is selected as an evaluation institute for non

B. Defendant

1) The procedural defect alleged by the Plaintiff cannot be deemed as a serious defect that must be revoked of the instant disposition.

A) Since the subsidy project is divided into annual accounts, it should have been publicly announced and registered as 'J'. However, due to the technical system problems of the subsidy management system, it is impossible to register the instant public recruitment project as 'J' because the budget has not yet been finalized at the time of the public announcement and re-public announcement of the instant case. The Defendant registered the instant public announcement as 'K' but became aware that the instant public recruitment project is not searched at J in the subsidy management system from 'K'. In order to prevent confusion, the Defendant modified the method of receipt and posted the instant re-public announcement on the National Technical Standard Institute website. In addition, there was a reasonable reason to change the procedures asserted by the Plaintiff. Moreover, the content that the “public announcement” should be made in the subsidy management system is not stipulated in the Industrial Technology Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, which is merely an administrative regulation that has no external binding force, and thus, it cannot be deemed that there is any defect in the procedural process.

B) As a result, in light of the fact that all applicants received the instant public recruitment project through the National Technical Standards Institute, and the Defendant, as a minor defect, should be deemed to have been cured as a result of a minor defect, even if it is procedural defect that the re-announcement of this case is not posted on the subsidy management system or that the subsidy management system was not received through the subsidy management system, as alleged by the Plaintiff, even if it was procedural defect, that is, even if all applicants received the instant public recruitment project through the subsidy management system, and that the Defendant had been able to register the public recruitment project in the subsidy management system after January 2018.

2) In accordance with the operating guidelines, the Defendant organized an evaluation committee as legal circles, academic circles, civic groups, certified experts, consumers, etc., and as a result, the result of the inspection of the management committee, the conclusion that C is most appropriate as the evaluation agency for new technology and new products, thereby making the instant disposition accordingly.

Whether the subject of examination has sufficiently secured independence and fairness in connection with the performance of the certification of new technology and new technology is an area where it is recognized that the responsibility and expertise of the administrative agency is respected, and considering all the circumstances such as the status of operation C and the process of performing the certification of the previous new technology, it is reasonable to evaluate that the operating committee has maintained the independence and fairness of C. It is reasonable to deem that the instant disposition has substantive defects that deviate from and abused discretion.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Whether procedural illegality is established

1) Facts of recognition

A) The former Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Technology Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 28291, Sept. 15, 2017) (amended by Presidential Decree No. 28291, supra) provides that the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy shall accept applications for the certification of a new excellent product under Article 16(3) of the Industrial Technology Act and receive applications for the extension of the term of validity of certification (Article 16(1)1), and shall delegate his/her authority to the Director of the National Technology Standards (Article 57(1)), such as the receipt of applications for certification of a new excellent product, the extension of the term of validity of certification, and the receipt of applications for the certification of a new excellent product under Article 15-2(4) of the same Act (Article 57(5)). Accordingly, the Defendant entrusted tasks related to the new excellent technology certification system to C, entered into an agreement related to the certification system of a new excellent product with L (hereinafter referred to as "the corporation", the representative of L), an affiliated institution, and the ex post facto management application.

B) On April 15, 2016, employees of related industries received a civil petition from the Board of Audit and Inspection to the effect that M, who is the president of L, is unfairly performing the business of certifying new products, such as giving preferential treatment to the corporation that is one of the representative directors of L (hereinafter referred to as "O"). The Board of Audit and Inspection transferred the civil petition to the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy on May 4, 2016.

C) By November 2016, the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy has conducted an audit of the contents of the above civil petition and decided on the “measures such as cancellation of the certification of a new product by objection, 0 representative investigation request, restriction on participation in certification evaluation or deprivation of qualification for 12 members of the certification evaluation committee who conducted unfair evaluation of certification.” The Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy revoked the certification of a new product as of April 30, 2017 and demanded N to reprimand the relevant person who performed the relevant duties to the head of N.

D) On December 30, 2016, the Defendant ordered L to collect the authority related to the certification of a new product entrusted to L in order, and announced L that “the support project for the certification of a new product in December 31, 2016 is terminated as of December 31, 2016.” The Defendant decided to conduct the instant public recruitment project in accordance with the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Technology Act amended on September 15, 2017, and posted the instant public announcement on the subsidy management system and the Defendant’s website, respectively.

E) On December 1, 2017, the Plaintiff hired N’s major employees after obtaining permission for establishment, and received an application for designation of a new excellent product certification evaluation institute through the e-date subsidy management system and the National Technical Standards Institute. FC received an application for designation of a new excellent product certification evaluation institute from the National Technical Standards Institute. In relation to the designation of a new excellent technology evaluation institute, C received an application from the Korea National Technical Standards Institute for New Technology and Standards.

F) Meanwhile, in order to register and carry out a public invitation project as a budget and details project in the subsidy management system in 2018, first of all, the budget should be determined and reflected in the digital budget and accounting system (d-Brain) and then the detailed project manager should be designated through the digital budget and accounting system. The designated detailed project manager can register the relevant public invitation project in the subsidy management system. In the case of the public invitation project in this case, the detailed project manager’s information was reflected in the detailed project manager’s information through the linkage of the digital budget and accounting system on the date, and the defendant thereafter registered the results of the public invitation project in the subsidy management system.

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute; the evidence mentioned above; the statements mentioned above; Eul Nos. 1 through 5, 7, 13, 21, 23, 24, 33, and 34; the fact inquiry with respect to the Director of the Korea Finance Information Institute of this Court; the purport of the whole pleadings

2) Specific determination

A) Article 57(9) of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Technology Act provides that matters necessary for the designation, operation, etc. of a Eunpyeong shall be determined and publicly announced by the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy (Article 57(9) of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Technology Act); Article 3 of the operating guidelines upon delegation thereof shall be designated through open recruitment (Article 3); public announcement of application for designation of an evaluation institute shall be made at least 15 days on the subsidy management system and the national technical standard website (Article 6); and public announcement of application for designation of an evaluation institute shall be made to the President of the National Technical Standards Institute (Article 7(1)); and the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy shall provide that the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy may fully or partially subsidize expenses incurred in performing his/her duties (Article 57(10) of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Technology Act). Article 26-2 of the Subsidy Act provides that the head of a central government agency, etc. shall select a subsidy program subject to the application of the Act, such as the implementation of subsidy program and post management guidelines (Article 2).

B) In light of the above provisions, the Defendant’s announcement and re-announcement of the instant public announcement and the method of receiving the instant application for the instant public announcement and re-announcement of the instant public announcement and the method of receiving the application for the instant public announcement by delegation of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Technology Act: (a) the institution that intends to be designated as an evaluation institute only provides that it shall submit an application, etc. to the President of the National Technical Standards; and (b) does not limit specific receipt methods; and (c) unlike Article 26-2(1) of the Subsidy Act, “the implementation and follow-up management of a subsidy program, etc.” unlike Article 26-2(2) of the Subsidy Act, the term “the implementation and follow-up management of a subsidy program, etc.” is merely stipulating that the instant public announcement and the instant public announcement are carried out through the subsidy management system. The purpose of the subsidy management system is to ensure that the instant public announcement and the Plaintiff’s submission of the application are not necessarily limited to the Plaintiff’s submission of the application through the subsidy management system.

C) Next, as acknowledged earlier, the Defendant posted the instant public notice on the subsidy management system and the National Technical Standards website, but only posted it on the National Technical Standards website, and modified the details of the instant public notice posted on the National Technical Standards website, and did not modify the relevant details on the subsidy management system. The operating guideline that requires the public notice of the matters concerning the application for designation on the subsidy management system to be published on the subsidy management system is determined in the form of public notice by the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy according to delegation of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Technology Act, and the integrated management guidelines that require the public notice of the designation through the subsidy management system to be prepared on the subsidy management system is also in accordance with delegation of the Subsidy Act that provides for the detailed standards for the selection of the subsidy project, etc. In other words, the foregoing guidelines are deemed to be binding in combination with superior statutes and statutes, and it is difficult to view that the relevant contents are inconsistent with the purport and content of delegation, or exceeded the limit of delegation. Therefore, failing to make the previous public notice of the re-public notice and modified contents of the subsidy management system is in violation of the relevant regulations.

D) However, in full view of the following circumstances that can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire argument in the above facts, it cannot be deemed that there is a defect to the extent that the disposition in this case is unlawful and thus the revocation thereof should be revoked (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Du9498, Jan. 30, 2009). Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part cannot be accepted.

① The period of time when the digital budget and accounting system (d-Brain) was reflected in the project of this case, and the subsequent process officer was not designated at the time of the said announcement, and the registration of J was impossible due to technical reasons in the system of operating the subsidy management system. The reason why the method of public announcement is different from the announcement or guidelines was that the Defendant did not intend to provide convenience to a specific institution, and that it was generated by the re-public announcement on the National Technical Standards website by recognizing that the re-public announcement was not possible in the subsidy management system. Rather, the purpose of revising the existing public announcement was to prevent confusion among potential applicants.

② The first public notice of this case was posted on the subsidy management system and on the National Technical Standards website, and only posted on the National Technical Standards website of this case was made in short of applicants related to new technology certification after the application period and later. In light of these circumstances, the damage caused by this part of the procedure can be found to be illegal and the potential applicants who did not confirm the National Technical Standards website of this case are lost the opportunity to support the new technology evaluation institute within the first application period stipulated in the public notice of this case. In light of the fact that the new technology evaluation institute of this case received the application within the first application period stipulated in the public notice of this case, the scope of potential applicants is recognized to have been considerably limited.

③ All applicants wishing to file an application appear to have been in progress with the Defendant’s guidance, and the Defendant registered the result of the instant public recruitment project on the subsidy management system from the time when the detailed business manager was designated and the use of the subsidy management system became possible. In other words, the affairs regarding the management of subsidies, such as the execution and follow-up management of subsidy projects, as prescribed by the Subsidy Act, were carried out

B. Whether there is substantive illegality

1) According to the legal nature of the act of designating a new technology and new technology certification evaluation agency and the relevant statutes and regulations on the criteria for judicial review, the designation of an evaluation agency for new technology and new technology among non-profit corporations and organizations shall be limited to a case where the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy deems it appropriate to conduct the business of certifying new technology or new technology (Article 44(1) of the Industrial Technology Act and Article 57 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act) and fairness shall be guaranteed in performing the relevant business

(Article 5(2) of the Operational Guidelines, along with the form and language of such relevant regulations, and the designation of an assessment agency is a non-profit corporation or organization with the statutory authority granted by the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy to delegate or entrust to the non-profit corporation or organization. Considering that the designation of an assessment agency is a discretionary act with discretion given to an administrative agency to determine whether a non-profit corporation or organization is in compliance with the relevant requirements or standards.

Therefore, the judicial review of the instant disposition is, in principle, subject to whether there is deviation or abuse of discretion, taking into account the possibility of discretion on the suitability of the administrative agency’s work performance, such as expertise, independence, and fairness, and whether there is a violation of the principle of mistake of facts and proportionality and equality, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Du30866, Jun. 19, 2017).

(ii) the facts of recognition

A) C is a public interest corporation established under the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Public Interest Corporations, and as of December 2017, C’s total number of members is about 8,602 and the percentage of membership fees revenue out of the budget is about 15.9% (round two decimal places). From 2014 to 2017, C’s 317 companies certified new technology is 106 companies (33.4%).

B) C is entrusted by the Ministry of Science and ICT with the task of supporting the acquisition of new technology by analyzing the causes of decline in the certification of new technology through technical experts in universities and research institutes. According to C’s work division, the relevant task is in charge of technical cooperation teams in the technical development support center, and C’s website is promoting business guidance, counseling, consulting, etc. on the items of “support for the acquisition of certification of new technology” through technical experts in universities and research institutes.

C) Before the amendment of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Technology Act, C had been entrusted with the task of certifying new technology by the Defendant. Specifically, upon receipt of an application for certification of new technology, C determined the appropriateness of the application division based on the “written opinion on the adequacy of the application division and classification table,” and formed and implemented the “specialized subcommittee” and “Certification Evaluation Committee” by reflecting the results of the above meeting. The organization of examiners was used in the computer system operated by C. As a result of the verification in 2017, 1,453 professors, 521 researchers, 55 researchers, and 1,979 (total 1,979 researchers) were selected from the relevant specialized subcommittee. Based on the results of the examination in 2017, 1,453 researchers, 521 researchers, and 1,979 examiners were selected from the relevant specialized subcommittee, 14 days from the date of receipt of the notification of lack of accreditation, 2 days from the date of receipt of the notification, 30 days from the date of receipt of the notification.

D) The examination committee members of the evaluation committee organized by the Defendant were 10. The evaluation committee set up an evaluation opinion (total of 100 points) on the evaluation table. The evaluation committee set up an evaluation group that received the highest point compared to the highest point and the lowest point, including the three points and the highest point, and added up the other points, excluding the highest point and the lowest point, among them, and compared to the total points of applicants. The evaluation committee set up an evaluation group that received the highest point in comparison with the total points of applicants.

E) Of the evaluation table, the items of â€˜the scheme for securing the independence and fairness of the institution' were classified as one of the detailed items of the requirements of the evaluation institution, and the marks were 20 points.In the case of the evaluation committee â€˜A member', â€˜A preventive activity of conflict of interest', â€˜A specific characteristic that could not be seen by other institutions', â€˜a new technology certification evaluation system', â€˜a new technology certification evaluation is operated in the same way as the previous new technology certification evaluation, â€˜a different point' for the plaintiff, â€˜the composition of the board of directors', â€˜a relationship with the previous N, â€˜financial stability', â€˜a business inherent to the foundation', â€˜a plan for securing fairness', etc.

F) The Plaintiff’s overall point, excluding the highest and lowest points, was 534 points as a result of the examination by the new technology certification evaluation institute, and C’s overall point was 612 points, and the results of the examination by the new technology evaluation institute were 520 points and 646 points, and C were 646 points. As a result of the evaluation of C, the contents of “evaluation as fair because the Plaintiff has sufficient experience in the certification of new technology and there has been no problems so far until now,” and “the construction of a system to ensure fairness is well good because there has been sufficient difficulties in the performance of the certification of new technology,” and “the construction of a system to ensure fairness in the operation of the foundation can be a problem due to the characteristics of the Plaintiff’s evaluation opinion made by small number of persons, it is necessary to present reasonable measures to ensure fairness in the operation of the foundation, “the need to establish relationship with the existing L/, fairness, and fairness,” but the content of the evaluation institute was presented.

G) Meanwhile, this lawsuit was filed against the revocation of the disposition regarding the revocation of the certification of a new product, such as the above A. (1)(C) (Seoul Administrative Court 2017Guhap60628), and the above court dismissed the claim on December 22, 2017, but the appellate court accepted the appeal on October 10, 2018 and sentenced the revocation of the certification of the above new product (Seoul High Court 2018Nu30688) (Seoul High Court 2018Du30688), and the appeal against the judgment became final and conclusive as the Supreme Court's rejection decision (Supreme Court 2018Du63983), and the prosecutor of the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office was convicted of the defendant 2, 2017, who was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor of the QR Research Institute, SCR and NAN 2, 2017, and who was selected as the members of the certification Evaluation Committee in favor of P. 23, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 15, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, Eul evidence Nos. 6, 8, 9, 10, 26, 27, 28, 31, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, and 41, and the purport of the whole pleadings

3) Specific determination

In full view of the following circumstances that can be recognized by comprehensively considering the purport of the entire pleading in the above facts, the Operating Committee shall evaluate the appropriateness and fairness of C in the process of examining the public offering project of this case as appropriate to conduct the evaluation of new technology and new products, and accordingly, it is not recognized that the disposition of this case that the Defendant selected C as an agency for evaluating new technology and new products is in deviation from or abuse of discretion. The Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is also unacceptable

A) According to the process of the new technology certification evaluation conducted by C, C classified the division of application through the expert meeting at the time of receipt of the application for certification, made it possible for C to conduct the evaluation over three occasions, and made an objection to the evaluation conducted by the examiners. This is to enhance objectivity of evaluation work and prevent C member companies from unfair intervention, while enhancing fairness in performing duties by providing opportunity for C member companies to object to the evaluation. In full view of the question about the process of operation of C, the method of conducting the new technology certification evaluation work for the last ten years, the method of conducting the new technology certification evaluation work, and the materials that the new technology certification work is expected to be conducted similarly, and the fairness in performing the duties of C was verified as to the new product certification evaluation work to be conducted in a similar way, and the independence and fairness in the evaluation of new products can also be ensured.

The evaluation of the management committee as above does not seem to have been erroneous because there are reasonable grounds, and there were no errors in recognizing any other premise or violating objective criteria for determination in legal evaluation containing facts to be recognized.

B) A verification is conducted through monitoring system, the selection ratio of examiners, the replacement ratio, etc. with regard to the review resources. Further, the audit process is conducted by the Ministry of Science and ICT to undergo an audit on the entrusted affairs. The Operating Committee is likely to question C’s method of verification, conflicts of interests, resolution methods of conflicts of interest, and receipt of civil petitions in the course of performing the project, based on relevant data, and evaluate C’s expertise, fairness, etc. based on the relevant data, and it cannot be deemed that the relevant content was unfair. It cannot be deemed that C’s evaluation was erroneous solely on the ground that there were many members among the companies certified new technology-certified companies from 2014 to 2017.

C) It is recognized that C carries out ‘V' projects in accordance with relevant laws, such as the Framework Act on Science and Technology, and promoted business guidance, consulting, etc. related to the relevant contents on the website. However, considering that the foregoing projects are carried out by the Ministry of Science and ICT as entrusted projects implemented by the Ministry of Science and ICT as part of research and development support projects, and thus, C’s internal division of duties is expected to be carried out by the examiners selected from the review pool, it cannot be deemed that C’s evaluation of independence or fairness was erroneous solely on the above circumstances.

D) C consists of membership companies as incorporated associations, and many companies having interests in the certification of new technology and new products among members, and membership fees paid by members shall constitute C’s budget. However, since C’s officers are appointed, appointed, commissioned, or recommended by the head of a central administrative agency or the head of a local government, or approval, consent, recommendation, and proposal for appointment, etc., the independence from members is expected to be secured to a considerable extent in its operation, and are capable of supervision and regulation from objective outside. Furthermore, expenses incurred in the evaluation of new technology and new products are expected to be fully or partially supported by the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Technology Act (Article 57(10) of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Technology Act). Thus, it cannot be readily concluded that C’s annual fees paid by members would affect the performance of their duties as an evaluation institution. Otherwise, there is no evidence or circumstance that C is subordinate to members or likely to be unfair in its performance of duties in connection with its budget.

E) The issue is whether N and L, who performed the duties of certification and evaluation of the previous new products, were unfairly engaged in such duties, and there are circumstances where the procedures such as the cancellation of the certification of new products, the criminal charge against related persons, etc. have been carried out, and the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Technology Act has been amended to proceed with the instant public contest project, and the examiner asked the Plaintiff about the relationship with the previous N. However, as if the conflict of interests with the members were subject to questioning with the Plaintiff as to whether the conflict of interests with the previous N are subject to questioning, it appears that it would be reasonable to ask the Plaintiff about the ways of securing the relationship or fairness with the previous N, and there are no other data or circumstances to deem that the Steering Committee carried out the illegal evaluation with the prejudice against the Plaintiff or C.

C. Sub-committee

The procedural and substantive grounds for illegality cannot be recognized for the portion designated by the Defendant as a new technology and new technology certification evaluation agency for C. Each of the instant dispositions is lawful.

4. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.