2018Guhap85839 Disposition revoking restrictions on participation in national research and development projects

A

Attorney Park Jae-sik, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

1. The Minister of Education;

Law Firm branch of the Republic of Korea

Attorney Kang Jin-hun, Lee Jin-hun

2. The Minister of Science and ICT;

Government Legal Service Corporation (Law Firm LLC)

[Defendant-Appellant]

July 19, 2019

August 30, 2019

1. The Minister of Education revoked the five-year restriction on participation in national research and development projects against the Plaintiff on August 30, 2018.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the Minister of Science and ICT is dismissed.

3. Of the litigation costs, the costs incurred between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Education shall be borne by the Minister of Education, while the costs incurred between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Science and ICT

Order Paragraph 1 and the Minister of Science and ICT revoked the three-year restriction on participation in national research and development projects against the Plaintiff on September 6, 2018.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a professor and professor of the electric engineering of the University B (hereinafter referred to as the “instant school”) and was the head of the Center for Research on wind power and energy adaptation technology (Engineener, ERC). A person who was dismissed from the instant school due to the instant misconduct related to student personnel expenses as seen below around February 17, 2017 and currently worked as a researcher (non-regular) at the Cuniversity (see, e.g., the Plaintiff’s reference document submitted by the Plaintiff on August 16, 2019).

The defendant Minister of Education shall delegate the academic support projects to the National Research Foundation of Korea pursuant to the Science Promotion Act, and the defendant Minister shall delegate the national research and development projects to the National Research Foundation of Korea in accordance with the Framework Act on Science and Technology.

B. From September 2012 to December 2015, the Plaintiff, as a person in charge of research from around December 2012, 2015, carried out 13 research and development projects, such as the adaptation table, control techniques, etc. of wind power generation complexes. The student personnel expenses to be received from the instant industry-academic cooperation foundation keeping research and development funds for the said national research and development projects paid by the Korea Research Foundation, etc. shall be paid by means of a direct account in the name of each student researcher managed by the principal himself/herself. However, during the period described in paragraph (b), the Plaintiff managed and withdrawn the student personnel expenses to be paid to each student researcher as above, and the head of the Tong connected to the account opened by each student with the password he/she informed to the student.

D. On January 13, 2017, the Plaintiff was a plan to manage the school personnel expenses as in the foregoing paragraph. However, the Plaintiff prepared an application form and plan for national research and development projects and submitted them to the person in charge of the industry-academic cooperation foundation in the instant case with the total amount of the personnel expenses when managing the personnel expenses of the Plaintiff himself/herself and using them in each of the above accounts, and submitted them to the person in charge of the industry-academic cooperation foundation in the instant case, and received KRW 5,809,70,803 as research and development expenses for the 13 research tasks listed in attached Table 1 from the person in charge of the instant case, and received KRW 537,957,080 from the said person, and received the total amount of the personnel expenses of the student researchers from each of the instant industry-academic cooperation foundation in the instant case for three years and suspended execution (the Jeonju District Court Decision 2016Da1019). The Plaintiff appealed and appealed against this, but all of which became final and conclusive (hereinafter referred to as is referred to as is referred to in the judgment below).

E. The Plaintiff immediately withdrawn 75% of the student labor cost deposited in the account in the name of the student research institute, paid in cash to the students, or transferred the account, and the remaining 25% was used as incentives, language support expenses, and other subsidies and room expenses (in the beginning of each month for the purchase of household goods and supplies necessary for the research room, the head of the room or the general secretary, the head of the 11th), 100,000 won for the 40,000 won to the head of the room or the general secretary, 1,000 won for each platform, and the student’s low-suping or general secretary (90,000 won per each month).

The usage of KRW 537,957,080, which the Plaintiff explained in the course of a criminal case, shall be as follows (Article 10, 10, see the warden’s 10).

(A) the description of each item;

(1) According to the standards of incentive payment performance rating, 40% of the standard amount was determined according to the class of incentives performance, and 60% was paid to the authors, and the remainder was paid to all students equally. Performance rating is as follows (No. 10 No. 19). (2) The first half to half million won per month was paid to the Secretary General or the Director General so that the defense expenses students can purchase necessary supplies for their lives in laboratories (No. 10 No. 30).

(3) The Plaintiff of the language support fund shall encourage students belonging to the laboratory to take one-time earth-interest test within two months, and shall support KRW 21,000, half of the test cost, from the students’ labor cost.

From December 2014, the Plaintiff invited the English language instructors to improve students’ English language proficiency ability, and supported KRW 100,000 per month, which is a part of the instructor fees. The language support fund was paid to the General Secretary or the Director (No. 10 No. 31).

(4) 15 days per month (90,000 won per person per month) per 6,00 won per son’s stone training expenses, and 10 days per month was paid to the Secretary General or the Director General (No. 10 No. 32 pages of A).

(5) At the time of the event of a single conference support fund, a summer, or any other laboratory event, the amount of KRW 1,200,000 was paid to two students who were assessed to have contributed to the development of the laboratory in 2012 and 2015 (No. 1,200,000, and KRW 830,000, respectively (No. 10, No. 34).

(7) In the case of meal after the seminars in laboratories every week, meals were provided, meals were provided to a small number of students and a small number of students on a non-regular basis, and meals were provided to an external customer with students (Evidence A No. 10 No. 35).

F. As to the above separate management and use of the Plaintiff’s personnel expenses, on February 27, 2017, the Korean Research Foundation investigated the improper execution status of the research funds for the instant school leading research center, and as a result, the labor expenses paid from the Korean Research Foundation out of the total student personnel expenses of KRW 537,957,080, which are recognized as the amount obtained by deception in a criminal case, are KRW 211,006,052, and other research expenses are KRW 15,860,119, research allowances of KRW 39,012,750, total of KRW 265,878,921, which is the sum of the research expenses of KRW 15,860,119, research allowances of KRW 39,012,750, was investigated to be recovered as improper execution (see subparagraph 2 of the A).

G. The Minister of Science and ICT (hereinafter referred to as the "Minister for Contribution") issued prior notice and objection procedures on September 6, 2018 with respect to the Plaintiff’s task Nos. 3, 5, and 6 attached Table 1 (the representative department title, wind power and energy adaptation technology research center; hereinafter referred to as “the task and contribution”) related to the research cost of KRW 211,006,052, including joint management of students’ labor cost, was discovered for the purpose of using KRW 211,00,052; hereinafter the same shall apply; hereinafter the same shall apply); Article 11-2 (1) 5 of the former Framework Act on Science and Technology (Amended by Act No. 12673, May 28, 2014; hereinafter the same shall apply); Article 27 (1) 5 of the former Regulations on the Management of National Research and Development Projects (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 24764, Sep. 26, 2013; hereinafter referred to as the former Management Regulations).

H. Meanwhile, in September 2012, which is the task listed in Table 1 table 2, the term “the task of the educational department” was the research task under the jurisdiction of the former Minister of Education, Science and Technology on the basis of the amendment of the Government Organization Act (see the former Government Organization Act amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013), the former Minister of Science, ICT and Future Planning (see, e.g., the former Government Organization Act amended by Act No. 14839, Jul. 26, 2017) and the latter change in order to the Minister of Education (see, e.g., the former Government Organization Act amended by Act No. 11690, Jul. 26, 2017).

In accordance with Article 20(1) of the Sciences Promotion Act, Article 20 Subparag. 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Science Promotion Act, Article 11-2(1)5 of the former Framework Act on Science and Technology, and Article 27(1)5 of the former Management Regulations, the Minister of Education imposed a disposition to restrict the Plaintiff’s participation in national research and development projects under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Education for five years, on August 30, 2018, on the grounds that it was discovered that the Plaintiff acquired a total of KRW 34,200,00 through the use of research expenses and joint management of personnel expenses for the tasks of the Ministry of Education for purposes other than research expenses and the joint management of personnel expenses (hereinafter “instant disposition by the Ministry of Education”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements in Gap's 1 through 14, 18, 20 evidence (the evidence with a provisional number shall include numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The assertion on the grounds for disposition

The plaintiff does not have any fact that he personally implants the student's personnel expenses deposited with the head of the Tong or uses them for other expenses. The plaintiff derived the maximum outcome of the research expenses set solely, and reasonably manages the laboratory by promoting the division of duties and equity between the personnel expenses among the students in doctoral courses and other courses, and only jointly manages part of the student's case expenses by inducing the students. Thus, it cannot be viewed as a case where the plaintiff used the research expenses for any purpose other than the original purpose under Article 11-2 (1) 5 of the former Framework Act on Science and Technology, which is the basic provision for the disposition of this case. The related decision did not only recognize the fact that the plaintiff acquired the student's money from the payer of the research expenses, but it does not mean that the defendant used the entire personnel expenses for each task for another purpose. Nevertheless, the defendants are presumed to have used the entire personnel expenses for each task for the original purpose only on the premise that the plaintiff used them for the original purpose other than the purpose of using them (the remaining research expenses and incentives paid to the students).

B. Claims regarding violations of statutes

1) Considering the changes in the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Education, the above tasks were under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Education at the time of the disposition of the Ministry of Education, and the disposition of the Ministry of Education in this case is against the principle of retroactive prohibition in regard to the tasks already terminated by the project

(No. 9 of the preparatory documents submitted by Plaintiff on April 10, 2019).

2) In addition, Article 27(3) of the Regulations on the Cumulative of the Period of Restriction on Participation enters into force on September 26, 2013, and Article 27(3) of the Regulations on the Cumulative of the Period of Restriction on Participation was deleted on July 22, 2016 and included in attached Table 4-2, and the amended provisions in attached Table 4-2 in the Addenda of July 22, 2016 provide that "from the national research and development project to which the Convention was entered into after the enforcement of this Decree, the provisions on the restriction on participation shall apply to the national research and development project to which the Convention was entered into after the enforcement of this Decree." Thus, the Defendants were able to take a disposition of each period of restriction on participation for the aggregate period of the two national research and development projects, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s ground that the reasons for the restriction on participation occurred in the course of the two national research and development projects, and the restriction on participation is unreasonable under the principle of retroactive prohibition (Article 3,4).

3) The disposition of the Ministry of Education in this case is governed by the Sciences Promotion Act that prescribes matters concerning research and management of cultural and social sciences, and since the Ministry of Education’s task is a task of science and technology, the Framework Act on Science and Technology is applied and the Sciences Promotion Act is not applicable, so the disposition of the Ministry of Education in this case based on this Act is erroneous application of the Act (the first page of the preparation document submitted by Plaintiff on July 18, 201

4) The criteria for restrictions on participation in the former Management Regulations are based on delegation of the Framework Act on Science and Technology, which constitutes an order of law. The ratio of usage for purposes other than the whole research and development costs is less than 10% and only a disposition of restriction on participation for not more than three years is possible, but the Ministry of Education issued a five-year restriction on participation in the instant disposition by itself is unlawful (the head

5) As in the instant case, the payment of all the research and development expenses received from the tasks performed at the same time during the pertinent period for the payment of the student personnel expenses ought to be different from the case where the period of restriction on participation is added to the multiple research tasks specified in the management regulations. In other words, even if the use for other purposes is subject to a restriction on participation due to such use, it is reasonable to consider only one disposition as a single disposition regardless of the number of research tasks during the period in which the research period overlaps as a single disposition, and to consider the purpose and purpose of paying the student personnel expenses (see, e.g., the purport that the disposition of restriction on participation is erroneous and added up according to the number of research tasks submitted by the Plaintiff on July 18, 2019).

Even if the grounds for each disposition of this case are recognized, each disposition of this case is only 1.1% of the total amount of research expenses for the remaining students except for the personnel expenses paid to the students by the Plaintiff out of the passbook, and even if all the personnel expenses under joint management are used for other purposes, the pertinent ratio is merely 4.5% of the total amount. Each disposition of this case is an excessive disposition exceeding the criteria for restrictions on participation prescribed by the former Management Regulations, and the Plaintiff already deposited the amount exceeding the personnel expenses paid to each individual student. In such a case, the amount can be deemed to be the recovery of the amount of unfair use, but the Defendants disposed of without considering it. In the case of the task of the Ministry of Education, the Defendants were the tasks managed in future creation and faculty as the same as the task of excessive donation, but as a result, the Ministry of Education was managed by the Ministry of Education according to the situation that the tasks of the Ministry of Education were government organization, thereby infringing upon the freedom of proportion by violating the principle of proportionality.

3. Determination on the legitimacy of each of the dispositions of this case

A. Relevant statutes

Attached Form 2 shall be as listed in attached Table 2.

B. Determination as to the Plaintiff’s assertion regarding the grounds for disposition

In full view of the above facts, the evidence mentioned above and the new facts revealed through the statements stated in Eul and Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3 and the whole purport of pleadings, as asserted by the plaintiff, it cannot be deemed that the whole amount of the students' personnel expenses in this case was used for the original purpose. The plaintiff's joint management of the means of access by having the plaintiff open a passbook for personnel expenses of students constitutes "use other than the original purpose of use" under the former Framework Act on Science and Technology. Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

1) As seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s personnel expenses paid to the students by withdrawing or account transfer from the personnel expense account for each student was limited to 75% of the personnel expenses that the Plaintiff would originally have to be paid to the students. The remaining 25% of the personnel expenses, such as incentives or laboratory operation expenses, is clear that the Plaintiff used the said 25% for the interest of the students, and the Plaintiff was not used for other purposes because the said 25% was ultimately used for the interest of the students, and the Plaintiff was not personally returned. However, the Plaintiff asserted that the said 25% was not used for other purposes. However, regardless of the student’s research performance or academic achievement, the Plaintiff’s use was clearly for other purposes. Therefore, it constitutes a use for other purposes.

2) We examine 75% paid to students. According to the evidence Nos. 2 and 3 of the former Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning, the standard manual for management of research expenses for national research and development projects in 2013 of the former Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning provides that “where a researcher withdraws and joint management of personnel expenses, the total amount of personnel expenses under the jurisdiction of the person in charge of research shall be executed unfairly.” Article 12(5) [Attachment 2] of the former Management Regulations provides that “A student personnel expenses paid to a student researcher shall not be managed by the person in charge of research

The reason why the above guidelines and regulations strictly prohibit joint management of student personnel expenses is that researchers are seriously embling or melting student personnel expenses under the pretext of joint management of student personnel expenses by taking advantage of their position, and is to protect the rights of the researchers and enhance transparency in the execution of research expenses by blocking them in advance. In light of the contents and purport of the above guidelines and regulations, joint management of student personnel expenses constitutes “where the research and development expenses (project expenses) are used for any purpose other than its original purpose.”

3) As seen earlier, the Plaintiff asserted that 75% of the money deposited in the student passbook was paid to the student without considering the actual flow of the money. However, the pertinent money actually deposited in the account in the name of the student with the means of access is under the Plaintiff’s exclusive possession (i.e., deposit of personnel expenses in the account created by the student). Thus, the Plaintiff appears to have continued to manage the account after the end of December 2014, 2014, even if it was known that the Plaintiff did not know of the deposit of personnel expenses in the account or did not know of the specific amount, and even if it did not know of the fact, it would be deemed that the Plaintiff paid it to the Plaintiff for the purpose of using it under the Plaintiff’s own law, regardless of the Plaintiff’s intention to be disposed of at any time under the Plaintiff’s free will, the Plaintiff’s act of using it for the purpose other than the purpose of using it is unreasonable for the Plaintiff’s own sake that it would not be subject to the Plaintiff’s administrative personnel expenses.

1) Determination on the first argument

The Ministry of Education cannot impose sanctions against illegal acts in the relevant research task because any research task is terminated, and even if the task of the Ministry of Education is terminated under the jurisdiction of the former Minister of Science, ICT and Future Planning, if any illegal act is discovered in the performance of the task and it is possible to impose restrictions on researchers, such as restrictions on participation, etc., the defendant who succeeds to the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Education can do so.

2) Determination on the second argument

Article 27(3) of the former Management Regulations (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24764, Sep. 26, 2013; Presidential Decree No. 27369, Jul. 22, 2016) provides that "where a person who has been restricted from participation due to one of at least two research and development tasks performed, is subject to restrictions on participation due to another research and development task, the initial date of the period shall be the day following the date on which the period for the restriction on participation in progress expires," and the above provisions were deleted after the amendment of the former Management Regulations and were inserted into the management regulations [Attachment Table 4-2] until now. Meanwhile, Article 27(3) of the Addenda to the Management Regulations (amended by Presidential Decree No. 27369, Jul. 22, 2016; Presidential Decree No. 27374, Jul. 22, 2016; Presidential Decree No. 27374, Feb. 6, 2013>

The purport of the above provision is to set the timing for the period of restriction on participation due to another research and development task as the next day after the completion date of the restriction on participation due to any one of the research and development tasks, and to impose an administrative authority that conducts a disposition of restriction on participation to prevent the early expiration of the period of restriction on participation due to the parallel of the period of restriction on participation due to a multiple research and development task and to effectively apply

As alleged by the Plaintiff, there is no transitional provision regarding the pertinent provision, so the agreement is deemed to have been concluded before the existence of the provision, and when the disposition of restriction on participation is imposed based on illegal matters in the instant excess donation and the task of the Ministry of Education, administrative agencies are not obligated to determine "the period following the completion date of restriction on participation due to a research and development task of which the period of restriction on participation is different from that of another research and development task." However, there is no obligation for administrative agencies to stipulate "the period of restriction on participation is to begin simultaneously at the time of the disposition of restriction on participation". In other words, since there is no provision on the first place, in forming the contents of the disposition, administrative agencies' discretion is required, but the disposition is within the limitation of the general legal principles on deviation and abuse of discretionary authority

On the contrary, the plaintiff's assertion that the defendants' continuous determination of the timing of each disposition effect violates the principle of prohibition of retroactive application of law is without merit.

3) Judgment on the third argument

According to the provisions of subparagraphs 1 and 5 of Article 2 of the Sciences Promotion Act, there is no inevitable ground that the task under the Science Promotion Act must be a research task in the field of cultural and social sciences. The plaintiff's assertion that the task of the Ministry of Education is the field of science and technology and thus the disposition under the Science Promotion Act is not possible. However, according to the overall purport of the statement and arguments by Eul, the task of the Ministry of Education seems not to be an academic support project under the Science and Technology Promotion Act, and it appears to be a national research and development project under the Framework Act on Science and Technology (However, there is no specific agreement on each task in this case, submitted as evidence), and it is inappropriate for the defendant's Minister of Education to present the Research Promotion Act and the Enforcement Decree thereof to

However, as seen earlier, the Defendant’s Ministry of Education explicitly stated the grounds for the disposition of the former Framework Act on Science and Technology and the former Management Regulations in addition to the Science Promotion Act, and even if the Research Promotion Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act were presented as the grounds for the disposition, it cannot be deemed that the instant disposition by the Ministry of Education is unlawful solely for such reason. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion on

4) Judgment on the fourth argument

Considering that the former Framework Act on Science and Technology does not expressly delegate the authority to determine the criteria for the disposition of restrictions on participation in national research and development projects, Article 27(1)5 of the former Management Rule merely appears to be an enforcement rule as a kind of discretionary rule, and even if it is deemed that Article 27(1)5 of the former Management Rule is a statutory order as alleged by the Plaintiff, considering that the disposition of restrictions on participation in national research and development projects is imposed for each research and development project as seen below, research and development costs of the pertinent provision shall be deemed to refer to research and development costs of the pertinent task. As seen earlier, the total amount of research costs for the task of the Ministry of Education is 64,22,342 won, and the student labor cost jointly managed by the Plaintiff exceeds 50% of the total amount of research costs. Accordingly, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

5) Judgment on the fifth argument

The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that only one disposition of restriction on participation should be taken within five years in accordance with the former Framework Act on Science and Technology since it was paid or used to students by adding up the project cost and labor cost received from the Ministry of Education. However, even if a researcher used the research cost by mixing the project cost received from several national research and development projects, the use of the project cost for a certain task is ultimately determined by each task (if it is unclear as to which project cost arises from one task, it is inevitable to specify the amount to be used for a different purpose in proportion to the total project cost by each task). The disposition of recovering project cost is also imposed by calculating the project cost used for each task for a different purpose. According to the evidence evidence No. 30, the Plaintiff’s disposition is more reasonable to determine the scope of restriction on participation in research and development as well as by calculating the project cost for each one’s own task to be used for a different purpose, and it is more reasonable to determine the scope of restriction on participation in research and development as well as the number of separate guidelines for each research project subject to the former Ministry of Science and ICT (former Ministry of Science and ICT).

D. Determination on the Plaintiff’s assertion of deviation and abuse of discretionary power

1) Relevant legal principles

If the criteria for imposing sanctions are prescribed by Presidential Decree or Ordinance of the Ministry, the criteria for imposing sanctions are not in itself consistent with the Constitution or laws, or a punitive administrative disposition in accordance with the above criteria are not deemed to have deviates from the scope of discretion or have abused discretion, unless there exist reasonable grounds to believe that such disposition is considerably unreasonable in light of the content of the act of violation and the content and purport of the relevant statutes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du6946, Sept. 20, 2007).

However, whether a punitive administrative disposition deviates from or abused the discretionary power under the social norms or not shall be determined by objectively examining the content of the violation and the purpose of the public interest to achieve the disposition, and all the relevant circumstances, which are the grounds for the disposition, and by comparing the degree of infringement on the public interest and the disadvantages suffered by an individual (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Du3854, Apr. 14, 2006). If, as a result of such comparison and balancing, if the disadvantage suffered by an individual is too large compared to the degree of infringement on the public interest, even if the relevant disposition was made within the criteria set forth in the disciplinary disposition standards, such

2) Circumstances unfavorable to the Plaintiff, such as the degree of infringement of public interest caused by the Plaintiff’s act

A) Each of the instant dispositions was conducted within the scope of the disposition standards. The total amount of research expenses for the instant task is KRW 5,353,978,461 (i.e., attached Table 1-3 or 6 research expenses). Of these, the amount discovered for use for other purposes is KRW 211,006,052 won. According to Article 27(1)5(a) of the former Management Regulations, where the amount used for other purposes is less than 20% of research expenses for the pertinent year, the disposition of the instant disposition of the instant contribution is made within the scope of the said disposition standards. The instant disposition of the Ministry of Education also takes place within the said disposition standards. The instant disposition of the Ministry of Education is a disposition made within the scope of the said disposition. The pertinent disposition of the Ministry of Education is used for other purposes than 64,222,342 won, KRW 34,200,000, approximately 53.2% of research expenses, and Article 27(1)5(c) of the former Management Regulations.

It is within the scope of the above disposition standard that the amount used for other purposes is more than 30% of the research and development costs for the corresponding year and is a disposition of restriction on participation within five years.

B) In particular, the scale of the task of the task of the excessive donation is considerably larger than 5 billion won in the cost of the national project, the absolute size of the amount used for the other purpose is equivalent to or more than 200 million won in the cost of the project, and the above cost of the national project resulting from the national tax is not reasonably distributed, and the cost is not sufficient to be used for other scientific and technological research that is urgently needed (it is highly likely that the above project cost was properly used since the research task was performed in good faith, but the above project cost was alleged to have been properly used, but there is a risk that the project cost would not be reasonably used from the point of time of the utilization of the above accounting item, and such risk would not be properly considered even if it was to be considered from the time of the selection of the task and the executing institution, and thus, it would not be justified merely because it was conducted in good faith after the next research task).

C) Above all, in light of the name of research expenses used for other purposes and the Plaintiff’s attitude after detection, etc., research expenses used for other purposes are not good. At the same time, research expenses used for other purposes are paid as wages for research activities, and social security and national policy benefits paid for the purpose of stabilizing the livelihood of students and raising awareness of their desire to do so by using absolute authority within a graduate school, and ultimately, are strictly prohibited by the Plaintiff’s act of using them for other purposes against the Plaintiff’s purpose of joint management, even if the Plaintiff’s act of using them is against the Plaintiff’s intent to use them under the Act and subordinate statutes, as well as the Plaintiff’s act of using them for other purposes is against the purpose of self-management, even if the Plaintiff’s act of using them under the pretext of self-management, i.e., the Plaintiff’s act of using them for other purposes is against the purpose of self-management of the Act and subordinate statutes.

On the other hand, the plaintiff did not have an attitude to specifically reflect the above purposes immediately after the discovery of the use for other purposes. Rather, according to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 11 and 13, the plaintiff was aware of the commencement of an audit by the Ministry of Education in around 2015, and informed fa, B, and C of the student research institute who had played a leading role in the laboratory, such as a room, and first made fab to make a statement through fab and in the above order, but if it is discovered that it is false, fab managed fab, fab and E, faC was jointly managed by fab, and faC was jointly managed by fab, fab, and fac, fac, the plaintiff explained that fab had made a statement to fab as fab, and that fab, the plaintiff's statement was easily made to the investigation agency about 19th of the above fab, based on which the plaintiff's testimony and 1.

D) If we gather the above circumstances, the degree of infringement of public interest caused by the Plaintiff’s act is not large, and the Plaintiff’s participation in the Plaintiff’s national research and development project is restricted for a certain period, thereby enhancing order in the execution of research funds for national research and development projects connected with taxes, and there is a high need for public interest to pay research funds to researchers engaged in research activities by other justifiable means.

3) The circumstances favorable to the Plaintiff, such as the disadvantage that the Plaintiff would suffer due to each of the instant dispositions

A) According to each disposition of this case, the Plaintiff’s participation in national research and development projects under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Education for three years, and in national research and development projects under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Education for five years.

Although it is limited to only the research projects under the jurisdiction of each defendant, the plaintiff's occupation as university professor refers to the realization of the plaintiff's freedom of occupation by receiving subsidies from the State as university professors. The plaintiff's occupation is limited to the plaintiff's freedom of occupation for 3 to 5 years, and the degree of such restriction is not easy. Furthermore, due to the case, the plaintiff has already been subject to disciplinary action against the school of this case.

B) In addition to the above purpose, the Plaintiff did not find any personal useful circumstance for the Plaintiff’s personnel expenses. The Plaintiff appears to have set up a joint finance of the laboratory and paid incentives therefor by separating a certain amount from the personnel expenses of the students for the purpose of raising research performance. It cannot be evaluated as the same purpose as the Plaintiff has a firm intent of unlawful acquisition with the purpose of using the funds.

C) According to the purport of the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 15 and the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that most of the students’ researchers under criminal trials were deposited as the principal deposit on June 10, 2016, and have deposited the amount equivalent to the amount of the school personnel expenses that they had not been paid during the period. The damages suffered by most of the students’ researchers except a certain foreign students appears to have been considerably recovered (However, the Plaintiff asserts that, on the premise that the said damages can be assessed to the “research and development expense account” under the proviso of Article 27(1)5 of the former Management Rules, it is possible to reduce discretionary mitigation due to such premise, but the said deposit time is already completed after the completion of the research project, and therefore, it is not possible to recover the amount corresponding to the research and development expense account. This is merely a damage compensation after the victims).

D) In particular, in the disposition of the Ministry of Education, it is limited to the extent that 1% of the size of the task of the Ministry of Education itself uses research funds to the extent that the size of the task exceeds the amount of 50%, and the ratio of the amount used for the other purpose is less than 50%, but it is much less than the amount used for the other purpose, which is the premise of the disposition of the instant excess (However, the Plaintiff became the Ministry of Education as the subject of government reorganization. The Plaintiff became the Minister of Education under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Education due to the government reorganization. However, as seen above, it is argued that the disposition of restriction on participation for the purpose other than the purpose of the disposition of restriction on participation, such as the disposition of restriction on participation, should be issued for each task, so such change does not necessarily affect the Plaintiff. Accordingly, according to Article 11-2(1) of the former Framework Act on Science and Technology, the effect of the disposition of restriction on participation in national research and development projects by the head of the central administrative agency is limited to the Plaintiff.

4) Comprehensive determination

A) Considering the aforementioned circumstances, in the case of the instant excessive donation, there is no illegality of deviation or abuse of discretionary power, as it adequately takes into account the limitation on the Plaintiff’s freedom of vocational activities arising from the size and disposition of use other than research expenses within the scope of the restrictive disposition criteria.

B) In the case of the instant disposition, the Ministry of Education may choose a smaller period of restriction on participation within the scope of the disciplinary disposition that “within 5 years”, but it has reached the disposition by selecting the maximum period of restriction on participation. On the other hand, the Plaintiff has already been dismissed from the instant school, and the Plaintiff has already been subjected to restriction on freedom of occupational activities. In particular, even though the size of the task of the Ministry of Education and the Plaintiff’s use of research funds for the pertinent task is much smaller than the Plaintiff’s use of the research funds for the purpose other than the purpose of the instant task, the disposition more severe than the instant excessive contribution was made, and the student researchers’ damages are expected to have been recovered to some extent, and thus, the disadvantage that the Plaintiff is entitled to receive due to the instant disposition of the Ministry of Education (five years for national research and development projects under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Education) is too large compared to the degree of infringement on

5) Sub-committee

Among the plaintiff's assertion on deviation from and abuse of discretionary power, the part on the disposition of excess donation in this case is not reasonable, but the part on the disposition by the Ministry of Education in this case is justified

E. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

Ultimately, the disposition of excessive donation of this case is lawful and maintained, but the Ministry of Education's disposition of this case is in violation of the proportionality principle and must be revoked because it is in violation of the deviation of discretionary power.

4. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim against the defendant with respect to the Minister of Education is justified, and the claim against the defendant with respect to the Minister of Education is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge, the rank of the judge;

Judges Kim Gin-jin

Judges Doodehyde

1) In full view of the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 5, 6, 21, 22, and 24 and the purport of the whole pleadings, the agreement on the task of excessive contribution shall, before September 2010, provide education.

Although it appears that the Convention on Unclaimed Tasks was concluded before September 2012, it appears that the specific time of the conclusion of the Convention in this case is known.

There is no firm material(agreement, etc.) submitted. Also, according to the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 22 and the purport of the whole pleadings, excessive contributions are made.

In the case of a task, it may be presumed that a new agreement is concluded by year from the time of the first commencement of the task, but this firmly known.

There is no data available, and according to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 5 and 9 and the whole purport of oral argument, the plaintiff also appears to have the task of excessive donation as one task.

(2) The first time of the commencement of the task, and the first time of the commencement of the task. The first time of the first time of the first time of the first time of the first time of the appeal.

In September, 2010, which is the starting point of the commencement, the provision of restrictive disposition standards applicable to the period was stated (Article 27 of the former Management Regulations).

Even if there is a renewal agreement, the substantial content of the agreement seems to be to extend only the period of the existing task (A).

According to the evidence Nos. 22 and 24, the total research period in the case of excess donation tasks shall be 84 months from September 1, 2010 to August 31, 2017, and the multi-year agreement among them.

The research period was from September 1, 2010 to August 31, 2014, and it can be recognized that it has been extended from September 1, 2014 to August 31, 2017, and following:

In other words, it seems that an agreement on research for the multi-year period is concluded at the same time on the opportunity to conclude the first agreement, and the agreement is a new research and development task.

It seems that the regulatory criteria of the revised management regulations will not be applied to the new agreement that grants the proposal.

2) Article 43 (Payment of Wages)

(1) Payment of wages shall be directly made in full to workers in currency: Provided, That if otherwise prescribed by Acts and subordinate statutes or a collective agreement, wages shall be paid in full.

may be entitled to deduct part of the amount, or may be paid outside of currency.

3) Under the foregoing premise, the Minister of Government Administration and Home Affairs shall give five-year advance notice of the period of restriction on participation at the time of initial disposition (A).

No. 3. At the time of the actual disposition, it appears that the disposition has been taken by reducing the period of three years (see, e.g., "the result of deliberation on an objection" in subparagraph 9).