1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. On April 8, 2008, the Plaintiff’s establishment of “B system” against the Defendant.

1. The reasons for this part of the basic facts are the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance except for the accusation as follows. Thus, this part of the basic facts is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Part 5, the "request" in Part 4 is the "request for the return of the subsidy of this case" (hereinafter referred to as the "request for the return of the subsidy of this case").

2. Existence of the obligation to return the subsidy

A. The reasoning for this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court on whether the instant agreement was terminated due to the Plaintiff is identical to the corresponding part 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 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The defendant of the 6th page 2 and the 9th page 14 are referred to as "the plaintiff".

Each "Plaintiff" in the 6th 3th eth eth 1st eth eth eth eth eth eth eths.

Part 6 5, 11, 18, 7, 7, 15, 8, 19 each "Jinwon" and each "Jinwon" of part 9, 14, 15, and 16 shall be considered as the "Korea Technology Information Promotion Agency for Small and Medium Enterprises".

Part 7, "Defendant" in Part 17 shall be raised to "C".

C. As to the completion of extinctive prescription, a judicial claim as one of the causes interrupting prescription under Articles 168 subparag. 1 and 170(1) of the Civil Act includes not only the case where the right holder claims a right against the person who asserts extinctive prescription, but also the case where the right holder actively claims the right in the lawsuit and accepted it (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 92Da47861, Dec. 21, 1993).