logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2018.01.24 2017구합21038
국비환수 등 처분 취소 청구의 소
Text

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company that operates medical appliances, cosmetics manufacturing and selling business, and the Defendant is a public institution established pursuant to the Industrial Cluster Development and Factory Establishment Act for the purpose of promoting competitiveness enhancement projects, etc. through the business of developing and creating an industrial complex, financial support for occupant enterprises, etc.

B. On March 21, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) on March 21, 2014, the instant agreement and the manufacture of prototypes; (b) the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Technology Innovation Promotion Act; and (c) guidelines for common operation of regional industry support projects (Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy Notice No. 2014-186

(2) On May 15, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement on a product manufacturing support project with the following content with the Plaintiff, which is a product manufacturing support project implemented as an exclusive institution.

(2) The Plaintiff submitted a final report from the Defendant on October 2, 2014 that the Plaintiff received KRW 35,400,000 from the Defendant to the Defendant, and that the Defendant completed the manufacture of the instant prototype: (a) on May 15, 2014 to August 31, 2014, the development implementation period: 57,40,000 won for the production of prototypes: From May 15, 2014 to August 31, 2014: The total development costs: 35,00,000 won for the State subsidy: 22,40,000 won for the State subsidy; and (b) on October 2, 2014, the Plaintiff completed the manufacture of the instant prototype; and (c) on October 16, 2014, the Defendant presented a final report on the fact-finding survey to the Defendant’s execution of the instant pilot product as a result of the Plaintiff’s implementation of the instant pilot product.

2 The Defendant held a deliberation by the Specialized Committee on November 14, 2014, and the Plaintiff appears to have plagiarism of the products of other companies, and the instant prototype is within the project period.

arrow