(영문) 서울행정법원 2016.11.11. 선고 2015구합83030 판결

A. The plaintiff is a representative director of a corporation B (hereinafter referred to as "B") with the purpose of software development business, etc.

B. B was selected by the Defendant as a participating institution in the Crrrr development project (hereinafter referred to as the “First Project”), which is a project for industrial technology development under Article 11 of the Industrial Technology Innovation Promotion Act, and the Drr development project (hereinafter referred to as the “Second Project”), and was subsidized research and development costs.

C. However, on February 13, 2015, the Korea Evaluation Institute of Industrial Technology, which is the exclusive institution for each of the instant projects, confirmed that B used research and development funds for each of the instant projects for any purpose other than research purposes, and made a disposition to recover research and development funds and restrict B and the Plaintiff’s participation in the national research and development projects. On September 30, 2015, the Defendant imposed an additional monetary sanction on the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 11-3(1) of the Industrial Technology Innovation Promotion Act and Article 14-4(1) [Attachment Table 1] of the former Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Technology Innovation Promotion Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 26889, Jan. 12, 2016).

D. Meanwhile, among the research and development costs of each of the instant projects, the details confirmed as being used for purposes other than the results of the fact-finding survey conducted by the Korea Evaluation Institute of Industrial Technology

1) Table 1 of the instant project

A person shall be appointed.

2) Table 2 of this case

A person shall be appointed.

[Ground of recognition] No dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) A non-existence of the grounds for disposition B purchased research equipment, etc. necessary for the instant project with the respective money listed in the Nos. 2 and 4 of Table 1. In addition, B actually used the money listed in the Nos. 15,501,353 among the money listed in Table 6 No. 1) as personnel expenses or research allowances for researchers participating in the instant projects. Accordingly, the instant disposition is unlawful disposition that does not have any grounds for disposition.

2) A deviation from or abuse of discretionary power

The Defendant did not fully consider the grounds for mitigation of additional monetary sanctions under Article 14-4(1) and attached Table 14-4(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Technology Innovation Promotion Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 26889, Jan. 12, 2016). Therefore, the instant disposition ought to be deemed an illegal disposition that deviates from or abused the discretion granted by the Defendant in imposing additional monetary sanctions.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Non-existence of grounds for disposition

A) Comprehensively taking account of the number Nos. 2, 4, 10, 10, 7 evidence Nos. 1, 9, 14, 14, and the overall purport of each of the statements and arguments in the accounts No. 2, 10, 60, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 200, 10,000, 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00,00,000,00.

B) 15,501,353 won among the six moneys listed in the sequence 1 above.

In full view of the overall purport of the statements and arguments in the evidence No. 11-1 and No. 11-2, the following facts are revealed: (a) the amount that B passed a resolution on expenditure as personnel expenses from around December 2013 to September 2014 and was withdrawn from the account of the project expense of the first project of this case from around 126,820,00 won; (b) the amount of personnel expenses actually paid to the research institute E and five other persons who participated in the first project of this case during the same period can be recognized as constituting 73,096,276; (c) on the other hand, the amount of personnel expenses reflecting the participation rate of the research institute in the first project of this case under the research plan of the first project of this case is merely KRW 57,595,370,00 among the parties; and (d) the personnel expenses paid by the research institute of this case are also included in the personnel expenses for the performance of the first project of this case as well as the personnel expenses for the first project of this case.

C) In full view of the overall purport of the statements and arguments set forth in No. 13-1 and No. 13-2 in Table 2, the following circumstances, i.e., the Plaintiff’s payment of money to researchers participating in the No. 2 project of this case as research allowances, and the Plaintiff’s payment of money to researchers who participated in the No. 2 project of this case as research allowances, are determined to disburse KRW 4,050,000 each under the name of the research allowances, and each of the same dates can be acknowledged as having withdrawn money from the project expenses of this case under the name of August 5, 2013 and 9.17 of the same year. However, considering that there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff paid money to researchers who participated in the No. 2 project of this case as research allowances, in other words, the Plaintiff’s payment of money to researchers who withdrawn money in the month in which B withdrawn money under the name of research allowances is deemed to have been different compared to other months, the Plaintiff’s assertion that this portion of money was used as research allowances of this case.

2) A deviation from or abuse of discretionary power

Even after closely examining the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff does not seem to fall under any of the grounds for mitigation of additional monetary sanctions as prescribed in Article 14-4(1) and [Attachment Table 1] (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Technology Innovation Promotion Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 26889, Jan. 12, 2016). Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part cannot be accepted on a different premise.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, all of the plaintiff's assertions cannot be accepted, and the disposition of this case is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.