1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. In order to efficiently support the planning, evaluation, management, etc. of energy technology development projects, the Defendant was entrusted by the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy with the restriction on participation in national research and development projects and the recovery of project costs under Article 44(1) of the Energy Act and Article 57(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

B. Around August 2013, the Defendant entered into an order for the project name: Eplcific Stecific (hereinafter referred to as “instant project task”); the entire implementation period and agreement period: From August 1, 2013 to July 31, 2015 (the first year: from August 1, 2013 to July 31, 2015; hereinafter referred to as “D”; B Research Institute, C, and D (hereinafter referred to as “B Research Institute, etc.”) with the participating institution “B Research Institute, etc.” (hereinafter referred to as “B Research Institute, etc.”); the order semiconductor manufactured to meet the intended purpose; the “total implementation period and agreement period”; and the term of implementation: from August 1, 2013 to July 31, 2015 (the second year; the year; hereinafter referred to as “10-15-7, 200, 2000, 2000, 2006, 2007, 2000.7”).

The Plaintiff is a professor of D School, who is a person in charge of D's task, who is an institution participating in the instant project.

C. Around February 2016, the Defendant rendered a final evaluation of the instant task (hereinafter “final evaluation”) and subsequently rendered a determination of “unfaithful performance”. The Defendant filed an objection respectively by B Research Institute President and D, but the Defendant dismissed each of the above objections.

In accordance with Article 11-2(1) of the former Industrial Technology Innovation Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 14592, Mar. 14, 2017), the Defendant, on June 21, 2016, on the ground that the outcome of the instant project task constitutes “unfaithful performance”, to C, the F (K Research Institute’s position), G (C’s position), and Plaintiff (D’s position).