1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. Of the appeal costs, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is the Defendant.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited the same reasoning as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for cases where the reasoning of the judgment is written or added as follows, and thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and

(Other grounds alleged by the Defendant in the trial while filing an appeal are not significantly different from that alleged by the Defendant in the first instance trial, and even if all the evidence submitted in the first instance and the trial are examined, the fact-finding and the judgment of the first instance court that rejected the Defendant’s assertion is justifiable). [The part to be corrected or added] The portion to be changed to “ December 14, 2016” of the first instance judgment 16 3 parallels “16.16.16.” The following is added to “10 parallels.” of the first instance judgment 18 pages 10.

Meanwhile, comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions and arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 32 and Eul evidence Nos. 20 through 23, the part related to "J" among the H project report (Evidence No. 21) appears to include some of the previous research results. However, the aforementioned report purported that "N has succeeded to the verification of the conclusions derived from the existing research using computing calculation," and there is no objective evidence that N has secured the aforementioned verification prior to H project. Therefore, even if evidence submitted by the defendant in the trial of the party to the defendant, it is difficult to readily conclude that the defendant cited the research results in N's master or doctoral degreeal degreeal course as it is, even if the evidence presented by the defendant in the trial of the defendant to the defendant to the defendant, it is difficult to conclude that the defendant cited the research results in the N's master or doctoral degreeal degreeal course as it is."

The Defendant asserts to the effect that the Plaintiff did not urge the Puniversity Industry-Academic Cooperation Foundation to submit the patent filed in the trial. As such, the Defendant’s Intervenor asserts that the aforementioned entrusted research task was neglected.

However, comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned evidence and the overall purport of the pleadings, the instant research institute’s final evaluation on November 29, 2016.