1. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited this case, is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following, thereby citing this case as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article

[Supplementary judgment] The plaintiffs asserts that the time when they conducted an examination at the first stage of the business of this case among the businesses of this case falls under the time when they injected melting metal with the same conditions as the time they manufactured them into the standard sight type, and thus, they do not faithfully perform the technical development under the agreement of this case.

However, in full view of the details and goals of the instant agreement and the project plan, the details and methods of conducting the research by the Plaintiffs, and the details of their reports, etc., which are acknowledged by the evidence adopted by the first instance court as seen earlier, insofar as it is difficult to view the Plaintiffs to be a case where the result is extremely poor by faithfully performing the research and development process, as long as it is difficult to regard the Plaintiffs as a case where the collection was conducted by a master-mar, etc., which was already held by the Plaintiffs, and the seal test, etc. was conducted after taking advantage of the reasons for resistance, it is reasonable to deem

The appraiser of the first instance also responded to the same purport.

According to this, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is rejected.

Although the Plaintiffs asserted to the effect that the portion using the original business plan and other evaluation methods was conducted with the Defendant’s report on and obtained approval from the Defendant’s side, the submission alone cannot be deemed as objectively proven.

According to this, the plaintiffs' assertion on this part is not accepted.

2. The plaintiffs' claim should be dismissed on the ground that there is no reasonable ground.