2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. The plaintiff A obtained permission from an intermediate wholesaler on December 11, 1993, and extended the respective period of permission on November 3, 2003 and December 28, 2006, and operated a intermediate wholesale business on Cheongju in Busan Metropolitan City C Agricultural and Fishery Products Wholesale Market (hereinafter "the wholesale market in this case"). The defendant is the opener of the wholesale market in this case, and the Do Office and the stock company (hereinafter "Airdo Office") are designated from the defendant as a wholesale market corporation.

B. On December 24, 2009, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s application for permission to extend the use of intermediate wholesale business and public property for consideration (hereinafter “disposition of nonpermission as of December 24, 2009”). The Plaintiff filed an administrative litigation with the Busan District Court seeking the revocation of the disposition of nonpermission. However, on April 23, 2010, the above court rendered the judgment on the Plaintiff’s failure (Seoul District Court 2010Guhap369) and the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

After that, on April 29, 2010, Plaintiff A re-application for permission for intermediate wholesale business and permission for the commercial use of public property to the Defendant. On May 6, 2010, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff the reply that the above non-permission disposition was legitimate on May 20, 2010, on the ground that “A is the same as the Plaintiff’s application for permission on February 18, 2009, and is qualified as an intermediary wholesaler due to the long-term suspension of business, and the administrative litigation filed by the Plaintiff A was dismissed” (hereinafter “the non-permission disposition filed by May 6, 2010”). The Plaintiff filed an objection with the Defendant on May 11, 2010, although the Defendant filed an objection with the Defendant, on May 20, 2010.

C. On August 2, 2010, Plaintiff A filed a civil petition for grievance against the aforementioned non-permission disposition with the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission. However, on October 11, 2010, the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission respondeded to the purport that the said non-permission disposition is legitimate.

Accordingly, on October 14, 2010, Plaintiff A filed a civil petition for grievance again with the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission. On December 28, 2010, the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission (“the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission”) against Defendant “Defendant A” on May 6, 2010.