1. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The grounds for admitting the judgment of the court of first instance, which the plaintiffs asserted in the court of first instance, are not significantly different from that of the plaintiffs already asserted in the court of first instance.

In light of the developments leading up to the purchase of the instant equipment, the cancellation of a purchase agreement and the return of purchase price for the instant equipment, the measures and actions taken by the Plaintiff Company thereafter, etc., which can be seen by comprehensively considering the evidence submitted at the trial and the first instance court and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is recognized that the Plaintiff Company used the instant task, the use of which is strictly restricted, for purposes

In addition, it is difficult to view that the employee in charge of the Plaintiff Company received the purchase price of the instant equipment from the Plaintiff Company’s corporate account, not the management account of the project cost, by mistake, and used it for other purposes, and there is no justifiable reason not to charge the Plaintiff Company’s breach of its duty.

Furthermore, considering all the circumstances alleged by the Plaintiffs, it is not recognized that the instant disposition was deviates from or abused by discretionary power.

Therefore, this court's reasoning is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this court's reasoning is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. In conclusion, the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.