1. Case Overview
The Plaintiff was employed by another institution and was already participating at a 100% commitment level in a separate national R&D project. Nevertheless, when applying for a national R&D project operated by an organization established by the Defendant, the Minister of Science and ICT (“MSIT”), the Plaintiff failed to disclose this fact in the submitted R&D project proposal.
After being selected for and carrying out the project, the Plaintiff’s failure to disclose the information was discovered. The MSIT subsequently imposed a two-year restriction on the Plaintiff’s participation in national R&D projects and an order to recover research funding. In response, the Plaintiff filed an administrative lawsuit seeking to have these dispositions revoked.
2. Plaintiff’s Arguments
The Plaintiff argued as follows:
- The participation restriction lacked a legal basis. The Plaintiff argued that Article 11-2(1)(7) of the former Framework Act on Science and Technology, which provided the basis for participation restrictions where a person had “performed” R&D through false or otherwise fraudulent means, did not include the application for an R&D project within the meaning of “performed.” Accordingly, even if the Plaintiff had used an improper method when applying for the project, such conduct did not constitute grounds for the disposition.
- The grounds for the disposition did not exist. The Plaintiff argued that the failure to disclose the participation rate did not affect the decision to select the project, and therefore did not constitute grounds for the sanctions.
- The disposition constituted an abuse or excessive exercise of discretionary power. The Plaintiff argued that the participation restriction and recovery order should be revoked because they constituted an unlawful exercise of administrative discretion.
3. Hwaum’s Arguments on Behalf of the Defendant
Hwaum, representing the Defendant, argued that, in light of the purpose of the former Framework Act on Science and Technology and the legislative intent of the relevant provisions, the term “performance” encompassed cases in which an R&D project was selected through fraudulent or improper means and subsequently carried out.
Hwaum further argued that the legislative amendment was intended to impose sanctions even where an applicant had engaged in fraudulent conduct during the application process but was ultimately not selected for the project. Accordingly, it was not necessary to establish a causal relationship between the fraudulent conduct and the project selection decision in order for the conduct to constitute grounds for the relevant sanctions.
4. Judgment and Significance
In response to the arguments and evidence presented by both parties, the court rejected all of the Plaintiff’s claims and accepted the arguments presented by Hwaum, counsel for the Defendant. Accordingly, the court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claims in their entirety and rendered a complete victory for the Defendant.
This judgment is significant in that it was the first decision to broadly interpret the meaning of “performance” under the provisions of the former Framework Act on Science and Technology governing restrictions on participation in national R&D projects, holding that “performance” also encompasses cases in which a party was selected for an R&D project through improper means and subsequently carried out the project.
The judgment is also significant in its interpretation of the legislative purpose behind the subsequent comprehensive revision of the former Framework Act on Science and Technology and the regulations governing national R&D project management, which ultimately led to the enactment of the National R&D Innovation Act. In interpreting the purpose and meaning of the revised provisions in light of the legislative intent of the former law, the court clarified for the first time that the addition of “application” as a ground for participation restrictions was intended to permit sanctions even where an applicant applied through fraudulent or improper means but was ultimately not selected for the project.
The decision therefore provides important guidance on the scope of participation restrictions and the interpretation of sanctions in connection with national R&D projects.
Author: Attorney Jeong Jae-kwon, Hwaum Law Office