1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

The reasoning for the court's explanation of this case is that Article 5 "Article 5" is "Article 5," and Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act is the same as the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for addition of the judgment under the following paragraph (2).

The plaintiff asserts that "The defendant was aware that he could raise an objection against the disposition of this case, but did not notify about whether he could conduct an administrative appeal under Article 58 of the Administrative Appeals Act, the plaintiff was erroneous that the objection notified by the defendant constitutes an administrative appeal. Therefore, the plaintiff's objection of this case must be subject to special cases concerning the period of filing a lawsuit where it had gone through an administrative appeal under the Administrative Litigation Act."

According to Gap evidence No. 1, the defendant did not notify that he/she may file an administrative appeal or administrative litigation separately while guiding that "it may file an objection pursuant to Article 47 of the Regulations on the Disposal of Research and Development Projects in Science and Technology under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning."

However, on the ground that the Defendant knew that “it may file an objection in accordance with Article 47 of the Regulations on the Management of Research and Development Projects in Science and Technology under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning”, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff misleads the Plaintiff as an administrative appeal, and it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s objection against the instant disposition constitutes an administrative appeal. Therefore, the filing period of the instant disposition should be calculated from October 10, 2014, which recognizes that the Plaintiff is the date of receipt of the instant disposition notice

Therefore, the above argument of the plaintiff on a different premise is not correct.

On the other hand, the plaintiff's above assertion is that "the defendant makes the disposition of this case."