1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Details of the disposition

The reasoning for this part of this Court is that the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (No. 7 through No. 5) is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (No. 2, No. 7, and No. 5).

The disposition of this case by the plaintiffs as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case shall be revoked on the following grounds.

The instant agreement does not stipulate that the Plaintiff A shall conclude an international cooperation contract with C.

Although C is indicated as a participating institution in the instant project project plan and the PPT data prepared around September 2016, it is reasonable to deem that there was a final agreement between the Plaintiff A and the Defendant that the participating institution was F.

Therefore, inasmuch as Plaintiff A entered into an international cooperation contract with F, deeming that the conclusion of the international cooperation contract with Plaintiff A constitutes the premise of the instant agreement, and making the instant disposition against the Plaintiffs on the ground that Plaintiff A did not enter into an international cooperation contract with C was erroneous in the contents of the instant agreement.

Even if the phrase “consigning to enter into an international cooperation agreement with C” was the premise of the instant agreement, insofar as the Plaintiff: (a) established a G which is a local corporation of the United States and entered into a mutual agreement with C in accordance with the policies entered into between the U.S. and the local corporation of the Republic of Korea; and (b) did not provide for the requirements for the mutual agreement that should be entered into with C in the instant agreement, the said mutual agreement constitutes a common agreement, and thus, Plaintiff A should be deemed to have entered into a mutual agreement in accordance with the instant agreement.

Therefore, the disposition of this case on the ground that the plaintiff A failed to implement the Consortitut agreement agreement is erroneous.

'A' which is a member of the CCAM in the United States.