1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The Defendant’s KRW 77,120,675 against Plaintiff A on August 28, 2018.

1. This part of the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the corresponding part of the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Since the part concerning the plaintiffs' assertion is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

B. It is as stated in the attached Form of the relevant statutes.

C. (A) Articles 31 and 32 of the former Act on the Promotion of Technology Innovation of Small and Medium Enterprises (amended by Act No. 14683, Mar. 21, 2017; hereinafter “former Act on the Promotion of Technology Innovation of Small and Medium Enterprises”) provide for “where the outcomes of research and development have been determined as a failed project or suspended project due to an extremely poor evaluation conducted by the Administrator of the Small and Medium Business Administration” as grounds for restrictions on participation in projects for the promotion of technological innovation and for the recovery of contributions, and delegates specific grounds for sanctions and disposition standards to Presidential Decree.

According to delegation, Articles 20(2) and 21(1) [Attachment 2] of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Promotion of Technology Innovation of Small and Medium Enterprises (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2836, Sep. 19, 2017) provide for the restriction on participation in the above support project and the full recovery of contributions paid for three years in cases where a small and medium enterprise owner, etc. who has participated in the support project for the promotion of technology innovation has failed to perform the research and development process and has extremely poor results.

In addition, Article 30(1) [Attachment 3] of the Operational Guidelines of this case, which is delegated with the restriction on participation and the detailed criteria, procedure, etc. for the number of contributions from the above Enforcement Decree, provides for three years of restriction on participation and the recovery of the total amount of contributions as in the above Enforcement Decree, and the research and development process of this case is faithfully conducted.