1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The Defendant shall pay KRW 20,000,000 to the Plaintiff as well as its related costs from December 20, 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company that runs civil engineering and construction works and civil engineering and engineering services, and the Defendant is an organization established for the purpose of investigation and research for the development of science and technology for disaster prevention.

B. On April 26, 2010, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a service contract with the content that the Defendant would receive KRW 100 million ( KRW 70 million for new technology development, patent application KRW 30 million for patent application) from the Plaintiff and that would develop new technology and apply for six patents from April 26, 2010 to October 30, 2010 (hereinafter “instant service contract”). At the time, the Plaintiff agreed to pay KRW 50 million for the service price within 30 days after the contract was concluded, and the remainder KRW 50 million for the service price shall be paid after the receipt of the service result.

C. On May 28, 2010, the Plaintiff paid KRW 50 million to the Defendant, and the Defendant filed an application for a patent related to the 16 environmental field on behalf of the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Article 7 of the Environmental Technology and Industry Support Act (hereinafter “Environmental Industry Support Act”) refers to a new technology specified in the instant service agreement. The Defendant is obligated to develop a new technology separate from a patent application and obtain certification pursuant to the aforementioned service agreement. The Defendant is obligated to return KRW 20 million remaining after deducting the patent application cost of KRW 50 million from the patent application cost of KRW 50,000,000,000, which was paid by the Plaintiff.

B. The Defendant’s development of new technology in the service sector of this case refers to “development of technology to the extent that the new technology can be certified,” and it does not mean that the Defendant obtains a new technology certification. The 16 patents filed by the Defendant are “new technology” in itself recognized as new technology.