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 reasons why the court uses in this case, such as accepting the judgment of the court of first instance, are the same as the part of the reasons in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following contents to the fourth following the 4th page of the judgment of the court of first instance (attached Form 2) (including relevant Acts and subordinate statutes), Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

6) As seen earlier, the reason for the instant disposition does not constitute “cases where the instant task is determined as a failed project or suspension project due to the evaluation conducted by the Administrator of the Small and Medium Business Administration due to extremely poor outcomes of research and development” under Article 31(1)1 of the former Act, Article 20(2) [Attachment 2]1(a) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Promotion of Technology Innovation of Small and Medium Enterprises, and Article 30(1) [Attachment 3] 1(a) of the Operational Rule of this case, not “cases where the outcome of research and development is extremely poor as a result of the evaluation conducted by the Administrator of the Small and Medium Business Administration.”

Article 31(1)1 of the former Act on the Promotion of Technology Innovation of Small and Medium Enterprises, Article 20(2) [Attachment Table 2] 1(b) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Promotion of Technology Innovation of Small and Medium Enterprises, Article 30(1) [Attachment Table 3] 1(b) of the Operational Guidelines of this case, “Where a person responsible for managing research and development tasks has neglected to perform it and thus has extremely poor results are determined as a project or suspension project conducted by the Administrator of the Small and Medium Business Administration due to extremely poor outcomes of research and development.” The Plaintiff’s assertion that “the disposition of this case is unfair” is not acceptable by itself.

Supreme Court Decision 2014Du47969 Decided April 23, 2015, supra, held by the Plaintiff, should be separately determined on whether the research and development process is unfaithfully performed, and whether the research results are extremely poor.