1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

On December 26, 2017, the Defendant’s development of technologies for small and medium enterprises for three years that the Plaintiff provided.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the corresponding part of the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part is cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence

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

(a)a summary of the Parties’ assertion;

B. The court's explanation on this part of the facts of recognition is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, the court's explanation is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of

C. Determination as to the grounds for disposition 1) The fact that the Plaintiff spent 512,410 won in aggregate of the mobile phone charges under the name of K’s representative director as “cost for materials for research equipment” and the fact that the Plaintiff did not enter the aforementioned mobile phone in “the current status of the possession and purchase of research equipment equipment equipment and facilities” in the business plan does not conflict between the parties. However, as can be seen in addition to the whole purport of the aforementioned evidence, it was possible for the Plaintiff to use the above mobile phone in wireless operation by using or monitoring the chip of the aforementioned mobile phone, and ② in light of the fact that the “communication cost” used to carry out the instant project project is subject to subsidization, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Plaintiff used the above equipment and facilities costs as well as the “communication cost” used to carry out the instant project.2) In full view of the facts acknowledged earlier in relation to E personnel expenses, the evidence before finding, the evidence stated above, and the purport of the entire pleading and arguments as follows, the Plaintiff’s labor cost is deemed useful for 1400 won.

(1) In cases where personnel expenses are used by changing the participating researchers and adjusting the participation rate in paragraph (4) among the criteria for the use of the standard item of the project cost for supporting technological development of small and medium enterprises, the comprehensive management system shall apply.