(영문) 서울행정법원 2019.4.26.선고 2018구합62201 판결

The defendant's disposition of restriction on participation imposed on the plaintiff on February 23, 2018 and disposition of recovery taken against the plaintiff by the president of the B University Industry Cooperation Foundation shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

(a) Conclusion of research and development agreements and payment of research and development expenses;

1) The Plaintiff is a professor belonging to the Meartathy engineering department of B University.

2) The president of the B-academic cooperation foundation (hereinafter referred to as the "head of the B-academic cooperation foundation") between the president of the Korea Research Institute and the president of the 0-industry cooperation foundation (hereinafter referred to as the "industry-academic cooperation foundation") entered into a research and development agreement with 0.0 trillion won (hereinafter referred to as "the research and development agreement of this case") on the total research and development period from June 1, 2013 to May 31, 2016; 840,000,000, which is a general agreement research and development cost of 0.0,000,000 won (hereinafter referred to as "the research and development project of this case"); 10.0,000,000,000 won (hereinafter referred to as "the research and development project of this case"); 2.5,01,005,000 to 3.6,015,005,016,005,005,000 won (hereinafter referred to as "the research and development project of this case").

(b) Results of the final evaluation of research and development tasks and results of evaluation as to whether they are conscientiously performed;

1) On June 5, 2014, the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant a plan for annual rent and performance of the instant research and development projects for the first year, and a plan for annual rent and performance of the instant research and development projects for the second year on June 1, 2015, and submitted the final report on May 31, 2016 (hereinafter “final report”). The president of the Korea Research Foundation assessed the Plaintiff’s research and development outcomes based on the said final report and notified the president of the Korea Research Foundation on August 30, 2016 of the results of the final evaluation of the instant research and development as “D” (hereinafter “instant evaluation grade report”). (The Plaintiff notified the president of the Korea Research Foundation on September 8, 2016; and the president of the Korea Research Foundation on September 9, 2016, notified the president of the instant objection on the result of the final evaluation of the research and development project (hereinafter “the instant evaluation grade”). However, the research foundation’s objection on September 16, 2016.

3) On February 1, 2017, the president of the Korea Research Foundation determined and notified the Plaintiff’s evaluation results of the Plaintiff’s instant research and development task as “unfaithful performance” (hereinafter “instant notification”). On February 3, 2018, the Defendant rendered a disposition of restriction on participation and the recovery of research and development expenses against the Plaintiff and the president of the Industry-Academic Cooperation Foundation (amended by Act No. 12673, May 28, 2014; hereinafter “former Framework Act on Science and Technology”); Article 11-2(1)1 of the former Framework Act on Science and Technology (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23788, May 14, 2012; hereinafter “former Management Regulations”); Article 27(1)1 of the former Regulations on the Management, etc. of National Research and Development Projects (hereinafter “the instant disposition of restriction on participation”) to the Plaintiff for 3 years (hereinafter “the instant disposition of restriction on participation”) and 4 years (hereinafter “the instant disposition of restriction on participation in research and development project”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 through 8, 11 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit is lawful;

A. Defendant’s defense prior to the merits

The other party to the restitution disposition of this case is not the president of an industry-academic cooperation foundation, and the part seeking revocation of the restitution disposition of this case is unlawful as it is filed by a person without standing to sue

B. Determination

If a third party, who is not the direct counter-party to an administrative disposition, intends to obtain a decision of propriety by filing a lawsuit seeking the revocation or invalidity confirmation of the administrative disposition, it shall be a case where the interests protected by law due to the administrative disposition, i.e., the individual, direct and specific interests protected by the relevant laws and regulations and the relevant laws and regulations are infringed or are likely to be infringed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du16127, Apr. 15,

The facts that the other party to the instant disposition is the president of an industry-academic cooperation foundation are as seen earlier. However, considering the following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by adding the contents and purport of the relevant provisions to the above facts, it should be deemed that the person in charge of research and development of the instant research and development task has a direct and specific interest in dispute over the validity of the instant restitution disposition against the Plaintiff, where it is obvious that the person in charge of research and development of the instant research and development task should be fully responsible for the payment of all or part

(i)The subsidization of research and development costs for national R&D projects shall not be based on the universities to which they belong, unless they are conducted with respect to the research and development tasks applied for by a specific research unit belonging

2) An industry-academic cooperation foundation of a university or a university should be deemed to be the external subject of the management and execution of research and development costs, who is the person subject to the official support of the research and development costs, and the substantial interest arising from the agreement is merely a party to the agreement and belongs to the individual research unit, which

3) As delineated below, Article 11-2(1) of the former Framework Act on Science and Technology provides that not only agencies participating in national research and development projects but also persons in charge of research may be subject to restrictions on participation and disposition to recover project costs, so it is only a formal matter whether the Defendant designates the party to the disposition to recover project costs. Rather, the fundamental reason for the instant disposition to recover is derived from the Plaintiff, who is the person in charge of research and development projects

4) According to the instant restitution disposition, the Plaintiff, a person in charge of research, will suffer disadvantages due to the Plaintiff’s payment of the restitution amount. If the Plaintiff is not admitted to have standing to sue the restitution disposition of this case, the Plaintiff would have no choice but to assume disadvantages due to the pertinent disposition, unless the president of the Industry-Academic Cooperation Foundation separately contests the lawfulness of the restitution disposition.

3. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant disposition shall be revoked on the ground that there are any substantive and procedural defects in the following contents.

(i) the existence of procedural defects

A) The Defendant provided only one opportunity to explain the result of the research and development task prior to the instant evaluation grade notification to the Plaintiff, and the other opportunity to explain is merely a formality. Therefore, the Defendant did not provide the Plaintiff with sufficient opportunity to vindicate in rendering the instant disposition.

B) In the instant lawsuit, the Defendant presented the result of the assessment by detailed items of the instant research and development task, and did not specifically state the grounds for the instant disposition at the time of the instant disposition.

2) Existence of substantive defect

The Plaintiff has achieved all the final goal of the instant research and development task, and faithfully performed the research and development task in accordance with the original approved research plan. Nevertheless, the Defendant, while evaluating the said research and development task, determined that it erred by applying arbitrary standards, such as the intent of the instant project, the nature of the research and development task, and the result of the implementation of the research and development project, etc., and by applying arbitrary standards, such as not taking into account the quantitative elements, in fact, the result of the said research and development is ultimately failed. Therefore, the instant disposition was in violation of the law

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination as to whether procedural defects exist

1) Facts of recognition

A) After the final evaluation of the instant research and development task, the Korean Research Foundation posted a "comprehensive opinion" of the evaluation members, such as 'evaluation grade' (D grade) and 'detailed information on it on the Foundation homepage' as a result of annual implementation, 'bs evaluation rating', 'bs evaluation process, which is the objective of this study, is considerably lacking, 'bs evaluation process', 's achievement level is very low,' and 's achievement level is considerably low compared with the objectives of this study,' as a result of the instant evaluation, etc.

B) After the notification of the instant evaluation rating, the Plaintiff and the Industry-Academic Cooperation Foundation submitted a written objection disputing such evaluation results to the president of the Research Foundation of Korea on September 2016. The written objection contains contents that specifically reflects the Defendant’s evaluation results by each point of view. Accordingly, the president of the Research Foundation of Korea made an appearance that the contents overlap with each other by editing, compiling, compiling, and comprehensively explaining the results of the three-year research," and it is insufficient in terms of explaining the contents systematically and comprehensively," and it is not well known that the relationship between each item is not sufficiently explained."The SOC forecast model presented in the final report shows that the experimental results is a model in the form of estimating the results in the first report, and it seems that there is a distance from the prediction model presented in the initial plan, and that the final report is not clear between the numerical interpretation result and SOC model, and that the final report on the results of the training plan presented in the first report are also dismissed including the results of the examination.

C) On September 8, 2016, the Plaintiff submitted to the Korean Research Foundation a written vindication as to whether the instant research and development task has been faithfully performed. On November 29, 2016, the president of the Korea Research Foundation held a faithfully performed evaluation committee on the performance of the instant research and development task and examined whether the instant research and development task has been performed in good faith based on various materials, such as the Plaintiff’s written vindication, the research plan, the final report and the evidence of patent application, the evidence of the results of the thesis, the estimated materials to train human resources, reference to the research-related field, evidentiary materials, etc.

D) On September 26, 2017, the day before the instant disposition, the Defendant: (a) notified the Plaintiff and the president of the Industry-Academic Cooperation Foundation by stating as the reason for the disposition the “measures following the failure in good faith as a result of the final evaluation; (b) the three-year restriction on participation against the Plaintiff and the disposition taken to recover KRW 133,03,745 against the president of the Industry-Academic Cooperation Foundation; and (c) the period for submitting opinions was set as October 12, 2017.

E) After the Plaintiff and the president of an industry-academic cooperation foundation received the above advance notice, the Plaintiff submitted a written objection to the specific grounds for disposition to each Defendant on October 10, 2017, and on October 11, 2017, the president of an industry-academic cooperation foundation submitted a written objection to the effect that the Plaintiff’s written objection contains a specific statement of the details of the research and development performed during the period and the content of the Defendant’s deliberation and development results based on the results therefrom, and a research paper containing a report and a research paper containing specific contents of the “representative research results for the assessment of the Plaintiff, etc.’s performance of tasks” as documentary evidence.

F) While rendering the instant disposition, the Defendant stated that “the reason for the instant disposition was extremely poor as a result of the evaluation conducted by the central administrative agency due to the extremely poor results of the research and development.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 5 through 7, 9 through 11, Eul evidence 5, 8, 10, and 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2) Determination

A) If the argument that did not grant an opportunity to present opinions is added to the purport of the entire argument in the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff received prior notice from the Defendant and received sufficient opportunity for the Plaintiff to submit materials favorable to the Plaintiff’s vindication and favorable to the Plaintiff by specifically disputing the grounds for disposition and submitting the Plaintiff’s report and research notes, etc. with documentary evidence. In particular, prior to the Defendant’s prior notice, the Plaintiff already presented detailed opinions to the Korean Research Foundation upon raising an objection to the result of the instant evaluation rating notification, and submitted a vindication and various documentary evidence as to whether good faith has been performed, so it cannot be deemed that the period for submitting the Plaintiff’s opinion is unreasonably shorter than 17 days (from September 26, 2017 to October 12, 2017) given to the Plaintiff in the subsequent prior disposition proceeding, and there is no other evidence to deem that the opportunity to present the above opinion was merely a formal.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit, since it cannot be deemed that there is a defect in the disposition of this case without going through the procedure for giving an opportunity to present opinions.

B) If the purport of the entire argument as to the subsequent argument of the reason for the disposition is added to the above facts of the recognition, it appears that the Korea Research Foundation presented the plaintiff the main reason for the evaluation of the research and development task while notifying the plaintiff of the evaluation grade in this case, and subsequently, it appears that the plaintiff with professional knowledge and experience in the relevant field could have sufficiently known the ground for the evaluation that served as the reason for the disposition in this case at the time of the disposition in this case. As long as it can be seen that at the time of the disposition in this case, the plaintiff had already been able to know the reason for the disposition in this case, even if the defendant did not clearly state the reason for the disposition in this case, it cannot be said that the disposition in this case is unlawful since it does not interfere with the administrative remedy procedure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Du8912, May 17, 2002).

Therefore, there is no defect in violation of the duty to present reasons under the Administrative Procedures Act in the disposition of this case. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

D. Determination as to the existence of substantive defects

1) Facts of recognition

A) The project of this case, among the "basic research projects in the private sector of the Korea Research Foundation", is conducted to support the development of creative basic research ability and further development of research by providing personal unit research support suitable for the characteristics of each academic field, and is not aimed at the commercialization of research results.

B) On June 15, 2013, the term "research goals", "research contents", and "cognive effects of the instant task, as described in the research report on the instant research and development task submitted by the Plaintiff to the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as "the instant research plan") are as follows.

C) Of the research programmes stated in the instant research programme, the term “annual research objectives and content” and “annual research results” are as follows:

(a) The objectives and content of annual research (1) annual research (2) year 1 (2) year 2 (2) year 2 (2) year 2014 (3) year 2015 (2) year 2015). The annual research performance objectives (unit: unit, building, name) of the instant research task described in the instant final report are as follows:

E) Among the “research results of the instant final report,” the algorithm that reflects the results of the 'test and the 2000 Formula 8 and confirms the load is as indicated in the annexed drawings. The primary formula indicating the correlation between the temperature used in this context and SOH is y=06x0.036 (y means the capacity decrease rate, x the temperature).

F) Meanwhile, on November 26, 2004, Pakistan Co., Ltd. applied for a patent of the invention called "the remaining capacity calculation method of an invoice" to the Korean Intellectual Property Office on the patent date, and published on Jun. 1, 2006 the invention in the public patent bulletin No. 10-2006-058983 of the Patent Gazette (hereinafter "the invention of this case"). The algorithm described in the specification of the invention of this case is as described in the separate sheet No. 2, and the relation formula used to indicate the capacity reduction rate and average temperature in the invention of this case is the "capacity reduction rate" = B +X temperature +C.

G) Until May 31, 2016, the date on which the research and development period ends, the Plaintiff: (a) 1 case of an overseas thesis, which is non-resident SCI’s non-resident; (b) 2 case of a domestic thesis, non-SCI’s 1 case of a domestic thesis, and 3 case of a non-SCI’s paper among domestic papers; and (c) the Plaintiff failed to both 2 master’s degree and 1 doctor’s degree, the primary goal of which is to be observed due to the failure to discharge the degree of graduates from a master’s degree or doctor’s degree; (d) the Plaintiff additionally discharged doctor’s graduates from the Korean Intellectual Property Office on June 1, 2016; and (e) applied for registration with the Korean Intellectual Property Office by making a total of 3 patent applications.

H) On March 2015, the Defendant prepared a comprehensive evaluation plan on the implementation system of basic research projects, major duties by evaluation procedure, details by evaluation type, etc. in order to conduct evaluations on basic research projects in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations, such as the Framework Act on Science and Technology (hereinafter “instant evaluation plan for basic research projects”), and the evaluation of the instant research and development tasks was also conducted by applying the evaluation plan for basic research projects.

I) The evaluation methods and evaluation criteria of research and development outcomes according to the evaluation plan of the instant basic research project are as follows.

(1) The Korean Research Foundation shall conduct a final evaluation of the performance of a research and development task and accordingly evaluate it as ‘D grade (less than 60 marks)', which is an extremely poor research performance.

(2) The Basic Research Center's Research Center's Research Center's Basic Research Center's Council consisting of two or more experts in the relevant fields within the panel in order to ensure objectivity and fairness of evaluation, the evaluation committee's evaluation committee shall be composed of three or more experts in the relevant fields within the panel, except in the case of two experts in the relevant fields within the panel in order to ensure objectivity and fairness of evaluation.

(3) The final evaluation committee members shall conduct a debate and announcement (top) evaluation after conducting a prior examination on the results of the research and development, and conduct the final evaluation. The evaluation items and evaluation indexes consist of the following, and among them, the qualitative standards for the results of the research are set out in the categories of five stages, which are to be considered for each category, such as ‘the level of research performance', ‘the level of research performance', ‘quality level of the thesis', and ‘technology transfer'. (1) In the case of the evaluation of whether the performance is faithfully performed, the evaluation items and evaluation indexes of the detailed criteria are set out as follows:

Re-existence

j) The Korea Research Foundation, as seen above, presented the results of the instant research and development project conducted by the Korea Research Center’s specialized research headquarters. The results of the instant research and development project conducted by the evaluation panel consisting of three experts in the relevant field, and determined that the final evaluation of the instant research and development task was D for the following reasons. Meanwhile, the results of the instant research and development project conducted by the Korea Research Foundation’s final evaluation of the research and development task, including the instant research and development task, were the same as the result of the instant research and development task conducted by the Korea Research Foundation’s final evaluation of the research task. The results of the instant research and development project conducted by the Korea Research Foundation’s final evaluation of the research and development task, which were somewhat insufficient. The results of the instant research and development project conducted by the Korea Research Foundation’s final evaluation of the research and development task, including the instant research and development task, were presented. The results of the instant research and development project conducted by the Korea Research Foundation’s final evaluation of the research task were also insufficient to achieve the objectives.

The feasibility of this study is that the purpose of this study is to develop a bms and measuring system for optimal shocking.However, it is not specific that bms can be predicted, and the outcomes can prove the excellence of the measuring system developed are considerably weak. ○ research implementation method and the implementation system is not clear. Although quantitative objectives are low, it is considerably weak to achieve the goal. As a result, it is difficult to see that the goal of human resources training is yet to be achieved yet. As a result, Article 27(6) of the Regulations on Research and Development for three years, which provides that the head of the central administrative agency should organize and operate the sanctions evaluation team to deliberate on whether research expenses are recovered, national research and development projects, and whether it is possible and its scope, and that the Korea Research Foundation directly constitutes and operates the sanctions evaluation team upon delegation by the defendant pursuant to paragraph 8 of the same Article.

(n) On October 10, 2017, the Plaintiff and the president of an industry-academic cooperation foundation received the above advance notice, and filed an objection against the Defendant on October 10, 2017. Accordingly, the Korean Research Foundation held a meeting of the 38th sanctions evaluation group composed of ten members on January 25, 2018 to deliberate on the instant research and development task, and as a result, the said objection was dismissed for the following reasons. Accordingly, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition to the Plaintiff and the head of the industry-academic cooperation group on February 23, 2018.

As a result of a thorough examination of documents related to the objection and face-to-face vindication, it is necessary to confirm the facts mentioned at the time of the announcement of the final evaluation of research results (in this paper, patent), good faith, etc. of the relevant task at the time of the final evaluation. Considering the fact that the final evaluation procedure has been properly conducted, the objection shall be dismissed

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 15, Eul evidence 1 to 5, and Eul evidence 7 to 11, the purport of the whole pleadings

2) Determination

A) Relevant legal principles

Article 11-2 of the former Framework Act on Science and Technology provides that the head of a central administrative agency may restrict participation in the national research and development projects under his/her jurisdiction, a person in charge of research, etc., within five years of “where the results of research and development are determined as a suspended or failed research and development project conducted by a central administrative agency due to extremely poor outcomes of research and development,” and that the relevant central administrative agency may recover all or part of the project cost already contributed or subsidized, and the detailed criteria prescribed by Presidential Decree under Article 11-2 of the former Framework Act on Science and Technology shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree. Article 27(1)1 of the former Management Regulations provides that the period of restriction on participation in national research and development projects under the same Act shall be three years, but

In full view of the language and structure, form, and the former Framework Act on Science and Technology, which form the basis for the development of science and technology, and strengthens the national competitiveness, thereby promoting the development of the national economy, improving the quality of life of the people, and contributing to the development of human society (Article 1), and the assessment of the outcomes and performance of research and development projects, etc. of national research and development projects is an area requiring high level of expertise, barring special circumstances, such as where an administrative agency made a specialized judgment on the aforementioned evaluation as prescribed by the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, it shall be respected unless there are special circumstances, such as that there are serious errors in finding facts on which the judgment was based, or that the judgment is unreasonable or unreasonable, and dispositions taken by an administrative agency as an exercise of discretionary power based on the said specialized judgment cannot be deemed unlawful unless it violates the principle of proportionality or seriously loses validity under the social norms (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Du2120, Jan. 28, 2016).

In addition, although the research results are extremely poor, it is not presumed that the failure to perform the research and development process is not presumed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Du47969, Apr. 23, 2015). However, the party asserting that the research and development was faithfully performed is liable to prove the fact (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2018Du52740, Apr. 11, 2019; 2018Nu35614, Jul. 19, 2018).

B) Specific determination

Examining the following circumstances that can be seen in addition to the purport of the entire pleading in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the instant disposition that the Defendant rendered based on the determination that the research and development outcome of the instant research and development task does not fall under a case where it was extremely poor and faithfully performed, is justifiable, and it is difficult to deem that there was an error of misconception of the facts, or of deviation from or abuse of discretionary power. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

A) As to the outcome of the instant research and development task, the Plaintiff received D grade which is the lowest grade among the five stages of evaluation by the evaluation group consisting of experts, and the evaluation group, which has repeatedly filed an objection to such evaluation, has also dismissed the said application for the same reason. The evaluation committee members participating in the final evaluation of the instant research and development task, who have participated in the final evaluation of the said evaluation, also rejected the said evaluation for the same reason. It is considerably insufficient to deem that the Plaintiff conducted mal veterinary model only on a simple basis of the Plaintiff’s presentation, and the correlation between numerical interpretation and SOC estimate model is not clear, as well as not only is the correlation between numerical interpretation and SOC estimate model, but also it is extremely low in the achievement level due to lack of explanation of the research implementation procedure, and it is considerably low in the achievement level compared to the performance goals, such as human resources training. The said evaluation is based on expertise of the evaluation committee members, and there is no special circumstance, such as that there is a serious error in fact finding, or unreasonable or unreasonable. On the day, the instant evaluation criteria for research task, including the instant research task.

B) The instant research and development task is deemed to have been carried out by the Plaintiff’s malgorithm analysis based on the 2nd malgorithmal analysis and its final research objective. However, it is difficult to view the Plaintiff’s malgorithal analysis as the basis of the malgorithal analysis and the malgorithm analysis based on the malgorithm analysis that was carried out by using the malrithm analysis as the malgorithal analysis. However, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s malrithm analysis as the basis of the malrithal analysis and the malrithm analysis based on the malrithmal analysis that was carried out based on the malrithal analysis and the malrithm analysis as the malrithal analysis and the malrithm analysis based on the malrithal analysis and the malrithm analysis as the mal analysis.

C) As to the invention based on the research and development outcomes of the instant research and development task after the end of the research and development period, the Plaintiff claimed that the instant research and development task should be deemed successful in achieving the research objective, as long as the invention is new and non-obviousness proven upon filing an application for a total of three patent applications with the Korean Intellectual Property Office (U.S. Intellectual Property Office) for a total of two applications for patent registration with the U.S. Intellectual Property Office (U.S.) on October 29, 2018 and Nov. 28, 2018. However, it cannot be readily concluded that the Plaintiff’s annual research objective presented in the instant research plan cannot be concluded to have been achieved in order, on the ground that the research and development outcomes of the instant research and development task was registered. Furthermore, if there is discrimination between the existing knowledge and technology in a patent application and considerable part of the invention, it is difficult to see that a new technology or research outcomes has a different level from the existing research and development outcomes.

D) During the research and development implementation period for the instant research and development task, the number of the thesis submitted by the Plaintiff and the number of the human resources trainedd by the Plaintiff is not only below the quantitative goal set by the original research plan, but also the domestic and foreign thesis also belongs to nonSCI. Although the Plaintiff applied for and registered a total of three patents for the invention based on the result of the instant research and development task after the expiration of the research and development implementation period, it does not constitute the content designated as the objective to be achieved in the original research and development plan, and thus, it cannot be deemed an essential matter to be considered in assessing the outcomes of research and development.

E) Although the evaluation plan of the instant basic research project needs to consider not only the quantitative evaluation based on the number of the papers submitted by the Plaintiff, but also the 'quality level of the research outcomes' and ‘use level of the research results' as the evaluation item (which also refer to the qualitative guidelines for the level of the research outcomes). As seen earlier, the evaluation committee members of the Korea Research Foundation may also consider the evaluation items in light of the actual contents of the evaluation plan, such as the degree of the achievement of the research goal and the 'use of the research results' as a whole, and finally set the scores as D grade. Ultimately, the final evaluation of the instant research and development task is not only a quantitative evaluation based on the quality of the research outcomes, such as the scientific and technological value related to the submitted outcomes, and the possibility of the utilization of the submitted outcomes, such as the quality level of the research outcomes and the relevant research field. In light of the aforementioned factors, the government's evaluation of the final evaluation of the research and development project cannot be seen as being the most unreasonable in light of the nature of the research and development project.

F) The assessment plan for the instant basic research project provides that “the reasons why the research objective is not achieved,” “the quality of the research outcomes themselves,” “the appropriateness of the methods and processes of conducting the research,” etc. shall be considered in assessing whether the said evaluation plan has been faithfully performed. The evaluation committee members of the Korea Research Foundation shall also consider “the feasibility of the instant research and development task,” “the feasibility of the reasons why the research objective is not satisfied,” and “the appropriateness of the methods and processes of conducting the research,” based on the contents of the said evaluation plan, based on the circumstances that have failed to achieve the research objective of the instant research and development task.” In particular, it seems that the Plaintiff applied for after the completion of the research and development period and applied for registration by the Plaintiff, and there is no reasonable vindication that can justify the Plaintiff’s failure to achieve the research objective of the instant research and development task. There is no other evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff performed the instant research and development task in good faith and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff performed the research task in good faith.

G) Ultimately, the Korean Research Foundation is in accordance with relevant provisions, such as the Framework Act on Science and Technology and the former Management Regulations.

The Defendant, through legitimate procedures, deliberated on the scope of sanctions, such as the outcome of the instant research and development task, whether it has been faithfully performed, and the recovery of research expenses, notified the Defendant of the result of such deliberation. On the basis of the result of such deliberation, the instant disposition was conducted based on the Defendant’s professional discretion with professional knowledge, and there is an error in the recognition of facts in the process, or there is no circumstance to deem that the criteria, procedures, methods, details, etc. of the determination of facts are objectively unreasonable or unreasonable. Therefore, the Defendant’s discretion should be respected to the maximum extent.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant of this case is dismissed in entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.