1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

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 as to this case is as follows, and the judgment on the completion of the extinctive prescription claimed by the plaintiff, emphasizing at the court of first instance, is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal as set forth in paragraph (2) below, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article

No. 5. Sub-Section 4. “Request” (hereinafter referred to as “request for the return of the subsidy of this case”).

b) in 198,00

The "Defendant" of the 6th parallel 2nd parallel is raised to "Plaintiff".

The "Plaintiff" of the 6th 3rd eth eth eth eth e.g.C.

Heading 6, 5, 6, 11, 6, 7, 6, 6, 7, 6, 7, 7, 7, 15, 8, 19, and 9, 14, 9, 15, and 16, respectively, shall be deemed to be the "Korea Technology Information Promotion Agency for Small and Medium Enterprises".

The 7th page 1 of the 7th page shall be friendly to "C".

Part 7, "Defendant" in Part 17 shall be changed to "C".

On the 9th page 14, the "Defendant" in the 9th page 14 is changed to "Plaintiff".

2. Determination as to the completion of extinctive prescription

A. The relevant legal doctrine 1) The grounds for the existence of the prescription system are that respect the permanent state of fact and protect the potential person on the right, and, in particular, the latter is meaningful in the extinctive prescription, so if a right holder expresses that he/she is not a locked person on the right by asserting his/her judicial right, the interruption of prescription becomes the grounds for interrupting prescription (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 91Da32053, Mar. 31, 1992; Supreme Court Decision 94Da13435, Jun. 30, 1995). If the subject matter of a lawsuit is substantially similar to the subject matter of a lawsuit seeking the revocation or confirmation of the revocation or invalidation of the return of a subsidy, such a lawsuit constitutes a judicial claim, which is the grounds for suspending the extinctive prescription of an obligation under the public law, even if an appeal is filed (see, e