2018Guhap63686 Demanding revocation of disposition, such as restrictions on participation in national research and development projects

action of this section

A Stock Company

Daejeon Sung-gu Family 218 (Family Dong)

decoration for Representative Director;

Law Firm Surury Law Firm

[Defendant-Appellant]

The Minister of Science and ICT

Government Legal Service Corporation (Law Firm LLC)

Attorney Cho Jin-hwan

Litigation performers shall be commercialized;

November 23, 2018

January 18, 2019

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of restricting participation in national research and development projects conducted by the Plaintiff on February 12, 2018 shall be revoked in both a two-year period of restriction on participation in national research and development projects, and a recovery of 5

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, as a public contest by the Information and Communications Industry Promotion Agency, carried out the tasks for preventing the leakage of information on Cloud and the IT-based infrastructure and the development of technology for asset management services (the period: from September 1, 2015 to November 31, 2015; hereinafter referred to as the "first tasks") and the "2015 Integrated PC Security and SW Asset Management Promotion Project (the period: from October 1, 2015 to March 4, 2016; hereinafter referred to as the "second tasks"). The Plaintiff received a contribution of KRW 86 million from the Government’s project cost.

B. The Plaintiff submitted a final report on the first task on December 7, 2015, and the final report on the second task on March 16, 2016.

C. 1) Around June 2016, the Defendant discovered that the final report on the task Nos. 1 and 2 overlaps with a considerable portion, and that the head of the Information and Communication Industry Promotion Agency established the Plaintiff’s business plan and the final report, and notified the Plaintiff of the fact that the research authenticity verification plan should be implemented and the measures should be taken accordingly.

2) The president of the Information and Communication Industry Promotion Agency held a preliminary investigation committee on November 14, 2016, a full-scale investigation committee on December 13, 2016, and a re-audit committee on February 9, 2017. In the process, the Plaintiff asserted that “In accordance with the announcement of each project, each project is premised on the existence and reuse of the existing SW assets, and thus, the judgment of overlap of the development of each project must be conducted excluding the existing SW products or assets, which are the premise thereof.” The results of a preliminary investigation, a full-scale investigation, and a re-audit are plagiarism, with the same content in terms of output results.”

3) On August 17, 2017, the Defendant held a specialized committee, and the specialized committee decided that the Plaintiff’s disposition against the Plaintiff was subject to restriction on participation in national research and development projects and restitution of KRW 51.6 million. On September 1, 2017, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the disposition. As the Plaintiff requested to notify the Defendant of the specific grounds for disposition, the Defendant re-notificationed the Plaintiff on November 14, 2017, attaching specific facts constituting the cause for the disposition. On November 30, 2017, the Plaintiff presented an opinion that “It is unreasonable to determine that the Plaintiff was plagiarism merely due to the error in the final written report.”

On January 18, 2018, the Defendant again held the Specialized Committee in order to give the Plaintiff an additional opportunity to vindicate.

4) On February 12, 2018, the Defendant rendered a disposition to the Plaintiff regarding the restriction on participation in national research and development projects for two years and the recovery of government contributions of KRW 51.6 million (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff committed unlawful acts, such as research and development data or plagiarism with research and development outcomes.

2. Relevant Acts and subordinate statutes; 2. Relevant Acts and subordinate statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

After submitting the calculation of the first task, the Plaintiff derived from the computation of the second task differently from the calculation of the first task; however, the final report erroneously entered the calculation of the first task as an employee’s actual waterway. Therefore, the Plaintiff cannot be said to be the case where the Plaintiff performed research and development by fraudulent or other illegal means.

B. Determination

In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged earlier, the Plaintiff appears to have conducted research and development by plagiarism of the researcher’s research and development data or research and development outcomes in order to use them for his/her research and development outcomes, etc. The instant disposition based on the foregoing premise is justifiable.

1) The details of the “final report on the first task and the list of the products of the detailed description of the report on the second task,” and the “list of the shape,” are both identical (183-89, No. 1-288-94, No. 1-3, No. 1-288-94, the developed GUI screen (the form in which the program is shown on the screen) and development.

2) The Plaintiff recognized that the same portion of the report on the results of the first and second tasks is the same, and asserts that it is the number of employees. However, it is difficult to easily obtain the final report on national research and development projects, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion.

3) The Plaintiff presented not only a preliminary investigation, a full-scale investigation, a re-audit committee, and a specialized committee held by the Defendant, but also its opinion at the prior notification stage of the disposition. However, the Plaintiff’s assertion in all procedures was not accepted.

4. Conclusion

The claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge, judges and assistant judges;

Judges Lee Jae-he

Judges Lee Jin-hee