2018Du52730 Revocation of disposition, such as redemption of research funds

1. A university, industry-academic cooperation foundation;

Representative B

2. C

[Judgment of the court below]

Attorney Kim Yoon-hoon, and Kang Sang-gu

The Minister of Science and ICT

Government Legal Service Corporation (Law Firm LLC)

Attorney Kim Young-jin, Justice Kim Chang-jin, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 2018Nu35614 Decided July 19, 2018

April 11, 2019

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The former Framework Act on Science and Technology (amended by Act No. 12673, May 28, 2014; hereinafter “former Framework Act on Science and Technology”) imposes on the Government an obligation to actively support creative research and development and open-end scientific and technological innovation activities by mobilization of necessary resources to the maximum extent so that science and technology can play a pivotal role in achieving the future strategy of the State through the formulation and implementation of science and technology policies, and at the same time, imposes an obligation to realize the basic ideology prescribed in Article 2 of the former Framework Act on Science and Technology and contribute to the development of science and technology by demonstrating its ability and creativity on the scientists and engineers (Articles 4(3) and 5(1) of the former Framework Act on Science and Technology).

Accordingly, the head of the relevant central administrative agency shall promote national research and development projects and support measures therefor in the fields of science and technology entrusted according to the mid- to long-term policy objectives and direction-setting for the development of science and technology (Article 11(1) of the former Framework Act on Science and Technology). If the results of research and development are extremely poor and determined as a research and development task suspended or failed as a result of the evaluation conducted by the central administrative agency, the relevant agency participating in the national research and development project may restrict participation in the relevant national research and development project and may recover all or part of the project expenses already contributed or subsidized (Article 11-2(1)1 of the former Framework Act on Science and Technology), and Article 11-2(5) of the former Framework Act on Science and Technology (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2579, Nov. 28, 2014; Presidential Decree No. 25779, Feb. 1, 2014).

Meanwhile, if an administrative agency made a highly specialized and technical judgment as prescribed by relevant statutes, it shall be respected unless there are special circumstances, such as serious errors in finding facts on the basis of which judgment was based, or objectively unreasonable or unjust. The administrative agency’s exercise of discretion based on such a specialized judgment cannot be deemed unlawful unless it violates the principle of proportionality or considerably lacks validity under the social norms (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Du21120, Jan. 28, 2016).

2. We examine the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its decision after compiling the adopted evidence, and found that Plaintiff C failed to meet the quantitative goals, and even based on the results of regular evaluation, such as scientific and technological values related to the research objective and the possibility of utilizing the relevant research field, etc., it is justifiable to determine that the instant research and development task was not performed faithfully. In so doing, the court below did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on deviation from and abuse of discretionary power.

3. We examine the third ground for appeal.

Since the research and development task of this case falls under the failure of the entire research and development task of this case in bad faith, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the standards for the recovery of research expenses, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, in determining that the disposition of recovering research expenses of KRW 61,220,000, which is within the limit of KRW 300,000,000, which is the total amount of the contributions during the pertinent period, was lawful, by regarding the period from May 1, 2011 to April 30, 201, which is the entire research period, pursuant to Article 11-2(1) of the Framework Act on Science and Technology and

4. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jae-hwan

Justices Park Sang-ok

Justices Lee In-bokon

Justices Noh Jeong-hee