The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The purpose of the appeal and the purport of the appeal is the judgment of the first instance.

The reasoning for this case is as follows, except for the modification of part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and the reasoning for this case is as to the plaintiff in the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this is accepted by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary part] Each plaintiff C in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance court, and each plaintiff C, "the plaintiffs," "the plaintiff, the plaintiff company, and B," respectively.

In the first instance trial judgment, the conduct No. 17 through No. 19 of the 5 pages 5 are as shown in the following box.

2) The Plaintiff Company’s achievement of the first stage development goal around April 2019, which was prior to the instant disposition, and the possibility of success in the instant task is low.

It is difficult to see it.

In light of this, research and development results of the instant task cannot be deemed to be extremely poor, and the instant disposition was deviating from or abused discretion.

The plaintiff in the first instance judgment No. 6, 7, and 8 of the 6th instance judgment “the plaintiff” shall be "the plaintiff company."

The judgment of the first instance court shall not be conducted in the 6th page 11 of the judgment document.

“In light of these circumstances, the instant disposition that determined that the research and development result of the instant task was extremely poor is justifiable, and cannot be deemed to have exceeded and abused discretion.

“” shall be added.

In the first instance trial judgment, the 6th eth 6th eth 7th eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth

D) If an administrative agency made a specialized judgment as prescribed by the relevant laws and regulations, it must be respected, barring special circumstances, such as that there was a serious error in finding facts on the basis of which the judgment was based, or that the judgment was objectively unreasonable or unreasonable.

In addition, a disposition taken by an administrative agency as an exercise of discretion based on a professional judgment as above shall not be deemed unlawful unless it deviatess from or abused discretion, such as violating the principle of proportionality or significantly losing validity in light of social norms (see Supreme Court Decision 201Da1548, May 1, 2