1. The plaintiff's appeal and the plaintiff's conjunctive claim added in the trial are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. The reasons for this part of the case are as follows: (a) the reasoning for the instant judgment is as stated in the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except that the instant judgment, which read “ May 1, 2018” as “ June 12, 2018,” under Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, is as follows.

2. The reasoning of the Plaintiff’s assertion is as follows, except for the addition of some of the following, and the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Part 6. The following shall be added to Part 10 below:

“Preliminary. The instant notice is based on the instant agreement, which is a public contract, even if the land price in the instant case is not a disposition subject to appeal. However, the instant notice was premised on the Plaintiff’s research misconduct even if the Plaintiff did not engage in research misconduct, and the content related to the Plaintiff violates the principle of proportionality by excessively excessive excessive restriction. As such, the instant notice’s restriction on the Plaintiff’s participation is null and void.

I would like to say.

[....]

3. This part of the relevant laws and regulations is referred to as the “Guidelines for the Management and Operation of Business” of Section 8 from the bottom of Section 11 among the “related laws and regulations” attached to the judgment of the court of first instance as the “Guideline for the Management and Operation of Business,” and, except for the addition of “the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes added” attached to this judgment, it is identical to the entry in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. As such, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

4. The reasoning for this Court’s judgment on the defense prior to the main claim is as follows, and the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is identical to that of the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment (the grounds for appeal No. 4) except for the addition or dismissal of some of the following. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Part 8. 7.