The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to whether the disposition of this case is abused or abused discretionary power (ground of appeal No. 1), Article 11-2(1)5 of the Industrial Technology Innovation Promotion Act provides that where an institution, organization, company, etc. participating in a project for industrial technology development uses government contributions for any purpose other than research and development costs, all or part of the project costs already contributed by the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy may be recovered (hereinafter “instant provision”).

In light of the contents, purport, etc. of the instant provision, discretion is given to determine whether the Defendant, who is delegated with authority by the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy, to recover the amount and how much the amount to be recovered, if there are grounds for such discretion, etc. However, if there exist grounds such as misunderstanding facts or violating the principle of proportionality in exercising such discretion, it constitutes abuse of discretionary power (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Du36256, May 28, 2015). According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court partially cited the reasoning of the first instance judgment, citing the reasoning of the lower judgment, and citing KRW 286,013,339, the Defendant embezzled the Plaintiff by using it for a purpose unrelated to the implementation of the project pursuant to the Convention, and 49,141,55 won, settlement amount, 2072, 938 won, and 13,038,408, and 3397, etc., the Plaintiff’s successful appropriation of the entire amount of the Plaintiff’s.