(a) Status of a party;

1) The plaintiff was a company established on June 26, 1990 for the purpose of the work of loading, unloading, storing, etc. of containers and their related cargo (the name at the time of its establishment was referred to as the "Dong Busan Container Terminal Terminal Authority", "New Container Terminal Authority Co., Ltd. on October 9, 1996", "Korea Telecommunication Terminal Co., Ltd. on June 1, 2009", and "Korea Telecommunication Terminal Authority Co., Ltd. on March 28, 2012, respectively changed to its trade name as of March 28, 201) and operates its business by leasing a new Line in Busan Port from around 191.

2) Under the Port Authority Act enacted on May 29, 2003, the Defendant is the Corporation established on January 16, 2004 for the purpose of developing and managing the port facilities in Busan Port and for efficient operation, etc.

(b) The progress and process of the implementation of a new vessel loan 1);

1) From July 2003, the Plaintiff requested a ship company using a new vessel loan to dredge an inner wall so that large container vessels can safely land, and around July 25, 2003, the Plaintiff recommended that the Busan Regional Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Office (hereinafter referred to as the "NNG") which was the management authority of the new vessel loan manager execute the said increased dredging construction as the "harbor construction authority", and the Busan Regional Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Office (hereinafter referred to as the "Masan Port Office") responded to the above increased dredging construction after reviewing the feasibility of the above increased dredging construction on July 31, 2003.

2) On September 27, 2003, the Plaintiff applied for permission for implementation of harbor works and implementation plans with respect to the 's project for dredging construction on the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the building. On October 21 of the same year, the Plaintiff started the said dredging construction work after obtaining permission from the Busan National Office, and completed the said dredging work on February 2005.

(c) The Busan Coast Guard 3) and the Ocean dredging (hereinafter referred to as the “instant construction”);

1. Prior to the conclusion of the concession agreement on the instant construction project

A) In order to enter and depart from the port of a large container vessel, the Plaintiff deemed that it is necessary to perform an increased dredging of the front line of the new vessel loan and sea route, as well as an increased dredging of the safe wall as described in the above paragraph (b) above. On October 7, 2004, the Plaintiff recommended the Busan Regional Office of Busan to implement the Busan Coast Guard and the increased dredging of the sea route (hereinafter referred to as the “instant construction”). On January 20, 2005, the Busan Regional Office publicly announced that the instant construction was designated as a non-management authority’s harbor construction. The Plaintiff applied for a participation in the project in a consortium name consisting of the Plaintiff and the ship company (APL) and was selected as an implementer on February 4, 2005.

B) Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an application for the permission of the instant construction with the Busan District Office, and the Busan District Office revoked the designation of the project implementer on September 23, 2005 on the ground that it did not prepare a legitimate plan for compensating for the investment cost, which is the requirement for permission, and notified the Defendant to be entrusted with the management right of the water zone facilities and the instant construction plan to be implemented through consultation.

C) On October 31, 2005, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for permission for the instant construction work in the form of “harbor authority”. However, on November 15, 2005, the Defendant refused the Plaintiff’s request on the ground that it is difficult to preserve the investment cost in the rent under the Port Authority Act, and responded that “after the end, the Defendant will actively review the Plaintiff’s request where the government project operator’s facilities (e.g., port lines and lines lines) are transferred or entrusted to the Defendant and the fees for the use of harbor facilities are attributed to the Defendant.”

D) On November 16, 2006, the Defendant transferred all the affairs related to Busan Port, and announced the announcement of the announcement of the "Research on Feasibility and Dredging of Busan Port" on November 16, 2006. On June 1, 2007, the Defendant held a final report meeting against the heads of related agencies and terminal operators, including the Plaintiff, about the service results of A University Port Logistics Research Institute. On June 27, 2007, the Defendant held a consultative meeting on the schedule of Busan Port (North Korea Port), additional dredging, and about the cost sharing in the future. On June 27, 2007, the direction of the project promotion expressed by the Defendant was that the Defendant was 'the new vessel loan 3, 4 lines, 4 lines, 4 lines, and 4 lines, and the length of the vessel, but the Defendant should bear the expenses for the service route, but the Defendant bears the expenses for the safe wall and the expenses for the captain of the vessel."

2) Conclusion of the instant concession agreement

A) On July 25, 2007, the Defendant sent a draft concession agreement on the instant construction to the Plaintiff on several occasions against the Korea Transportation Corporation operating the Plaintiff and the Korea Transportation Corporation (Korea Transportation Corporation, on April 20, 2009, transferred the right to operate the Korea Transportation Corporation to the international Korea Transportation Corporation, and the international Korea Transportation Corporation, on or around December 30, 2009, changed its trade name to the Korea Transportation Corporation). On or around February 22, 2008, the Defendant sent several opinions to the Plaintiff at the Defendant’s expense, and the Defendant first sent the draft concession agreement on the instant construction. After completing the construction, the Defendant first performed the construction, the Plaintiff bears dredging expenses for the sea lane, the Plaintiff bears the expenses finalized and repaid the Defendant annually in accordance with the repayment method of principal-free interest and the repayment period shall be ten years from the completion date.

B) On June 17, 2008, the Plaintiff concluded a concession agreement on the instant construction project (hereinafter “instant concession agreement”) with the Defendant on several occasions on the content of the concession agreement with the Defendant.

The concession agreement for the dredging work in Busan (North Korea) Port;

Article 1 (Purpose) The purpose of this Convention is to prescribe necessary matters, such as the scope of the project between "A" and "B", the burden of the project cost, the implementation of the project, etc. for the smooth promotion of the project.

Article 2 (Definitions of Terms)

1. The term "hurfing of a sea depth" means to increase the facility capacity of a harbor by dredging at 15 meters of the current planned sea depth at 16 meters;

3. The term "chairperson" means the front sea area of the 10,000 TEU level or higher at the wharf where the container lines are 10,000 TEU or higher and the 4 tin (350 meters) and part of the tin (350 meters) and the tin full-side sea area at the wharf where the direction of navigation is changed safely;

Article 3 (Opening of Business)

(1) The outline of the projects to which this Convention applies shall be as follows:

1. Project name: The project name which is dredging at the Busan Port;

2. Project operator: Defendant, Plaintiff;

3. Scope of business: paragraph (1) of the Busan Port shall be the area of the line place for a consultation with a part of the sea area, a new line loan No. 4, a line for a consultation with a tin, and a dredging area, and the dredging area shall be determined through working design services.

4. Contents of the project: Dredging 15 meters in depth;

(2) The working design service under paragraph (1) (3) shall be conducted by the plaintiff and the defendant in consultation with the plaintiff and the defendant, and the increase of the president for a new line loan No. 4 tin and reduction of tin and a reduction of tin shall be the minimum area where the ship can safely contact the new line loan and reduction of tin and shall clearly indicate the common area and eliminate problems that may arise in the future.

Article 5 (Bearing of Project Costs) (1) "Indeption dredging" shall be implemented first at the expense of the defendant, and after the completion of construction, the defendant shall bear the expenses to be borne by the plaintiff among the dedicated areas for new loan and common areas prescribed in Article 3 (2) among the expenses for dredging for the captain of a ship.

(2) Common expenses, such as environmental impact assessment, supervision, etc. required for an increase or decrease dredging, shall be borne, respectively, in proportion to the expenses to be borne by the defendant and the plaintiff, from the aggregate amount of the cost

Article 6 (Adjustment and Payment of Project Costs) ① The "educulation dredging" implemented at the defendant's expense shall be settled in accordance with the principle of project cost burden under Article 5 of this Convention after the completion of the project, with the total project cost fixed and settled in accordance with the principle of project cost burden under Article 5 of this Convention, and the joint zone with other terminals shall be determined through working design services as the overlapping zone between the 10,000 TEU level container vessels and the 10,000 TEU level container vessels used at the call of a new vessel loan or at the call of another terminal wharf, and the expenses for dredging of the common zone of

(2) The plaintiff shall reimburse the defendant each year for the expenses fixed at the plaintiff's expense according to the repayment method for the principal with no interest, and the repayment period shall be 15 years from the expiration date

(3) The repayment date of the Plaintiff’s principal shall be January 1 of each year, and the overdue interest due to the delay in repayment of principal shall be calculated by applying 12% per annum.

(4) Where construction works are implemented at the expense of the Government or defendant with regard to the increased dredging construction works for another container-only terminal in Busan Port, a separate consultation shall be held on the compensation for expenses borne by the plaintiff.

3) The progress, etc. of the instant construction project

A) After the conclusion of the instant concession agreement, the Defendant entered into a working design service contract with the same technical corporation (hereinafter referred to as the “working design service company”), and selected a service supervisor and notified the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff notified the service supervisor to the Defendant.

B) On January 7, 2009, the shop design service provider held an interim report meeting on the shop design service. (1) In addition, as described in the attached drawing 1, the author presented a proposal based on the number of seats 3, 4, and 5, as shown in the attached drawing 2, including the number of seats 3, 4, and 5, as shown in the attached drawing 2. The pilot association presented the opinion that the two proposals are appropriate at the interim report meeting.

C) Accordingly, on January 9, 2009, the Defendant, including the Plaintiff, the wharf operators including the Plaintiff, the persons related to the Pilot Association, and the working design service providers were present at the meeting, and the Council of Users’ requirements in accordance with the 'large-type port' was held at the meeting, and ① the proposal and ② the proposal have been interrupted, and the dredging scope (including the portion of the front line of 3 tin in the attached Form 3) has been determined according to the result of the vessel operation.

D) Around March 11, 2009, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff an official door stating that the instant construction will be implemented by expanding it from No. 4 to No. 3,4, and 5. Around the 27th of the same month, the Defendant contracted the instant construction work to a heading construction, and the construction for use was commenced on March 30, 2009 and completed around December 15, 201, and thus, the Defendant submitted a completion report to the Busan Regional Office and received confirmation on the completion of construction.

E) Around March 15, 2011, the Defendant determined that it would be difficult for the Defendant to conduct an increased dredging due to concerns over the damage to the tin structure No. 3 of the new line loan, and that the part of the president of the front line of 3 lines was excluded from the dredging type, thereby dredging as described in the attached Form.

F) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff cannot bear the instant construction cost or the cost of dredging construction cost at least five times on April 2, 2009, June 18, 2010, and October 11, 201, and November 22, 201, on several occasions, and requested the Defendant to re-consultation on the instant construction cost or to be borne by the Defendant.

C. Partial payment of the Plaintiff’s project cost

1) After January 17, 2012, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the Plaintiff’s apportionments under the instant concession agreement. Of total project cost of KRW 26,656,618,642 (excluding value-added tax), the Plaintiff’s apportionments under the instant concession agreement were KRW 12,056,948,595 (including value-added tax and value-added tax, KRW 13,262,643,450 if the Plaintiff included the value-added tax and value-added tax).

2) On February 9, 2012, 14, and March 7, 2012, the Plaintiff demanded that the Defendant share the construction cost of this case three times each time under Article 6(4) of the instant concession agreement, and Article 7 of the lease agreement, the Plaintiff requested consultation on the reduction of or exemption from rents under the concession agreement and lease agreement on the grounds of illegality, such as the request for reduction of or exemption from rents under Article 6(4) of the instant concession agreement and Article 7 of the lease agreement, and the increase in the construction cost for the Plaintiff’s additional construction works, etc. However, the Defendant demanded that the Plaintiff pay the first contribution on March 23, 2012, and the Plaintiff demanded that the Defendant pay the first contribution on March 23, 2012. The Plaintiff clearly revealed that the Plaintiff did not recognize the Defendant’s obligation to pay the charge, taking into account overdue interests, and the share remains at KRW 12,378,467,200 (including value-added tax).

D. Meanwhile, the provisions of the Harbor Act, the Port Authority, etc. related to the instant concession agreement, and the main contents of the new vessel loan lease agreement are as stated in the annexed sheet.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5 through 12, 16, 17, Eul evidence Nos. 3 through 8, 16, 17 and the purport of the whole pleadings;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) Since the concession agreement of this case is null and void for the following reasons or cancelled by the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, the defendant shall return the project cost of the plaintiff paid as part of the construction cost of this case by unjust enrichment to the plaintiff, and damages for delay thereof, and confirm that there is no balance between the remaining project cost and the charge for construction cost of this case and the remaining project cost of KRW 12,378,467,220.

① The instant concession agreement is null and void in violation of the Harbor Act and the Port Authority Act, as it applied the method of implementation and the method of sharing expenses, which are mandatory laws.

② The instant concession agreement is a contract that is concluded by the Defendant using a method of entering into a private contract for the purpose of imposing costs that cannot be imposed under the Harbor Act or the Port Act on the Plaintiff, and thus null and void as it goes against Article 103 of the Civil Act, since the construction cost borne by the Plaintiff is not entirely prescribed in the State’s uniform acquisition of ownership and thus infringing the Plaintiff’s property right. In the case of Busan New Port and Incheon, the Defendant or Incheon Port Corporation is not a wharf operator, but the Defendant or Incheon Port Corporation bears the cost of dredging.

③ The instant concession agreement is null and void in violation of Article 104 of the Civil Act, as it considerably loses fairness concluded by using the Plaintiff’s Rose of Sharon.

④ The instant concession agreement includes “the obligation to provide the Plaintiff with a wharf that the 10,000 TEU vessel may contact.” At present, the 10,000 TEU vessel’s landing at the 10,000 TEU vessel constitutes nonperformance due to safety impossibility. Therefore, the instant concession agreement is rescinded by the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case.

2) Even if the instant concession agreement does not become null and void or has not been rescinded, KRW 4,006,948,595, required for the portion of the construction project which the Defendant voluntarily increased (No. 5 line-related portion), is not the portion to which the instant concession agreement applies, but there is no additional agreement to bear it by the Plaintiff. Therefore, there is no obligation to bear it by the Plaintiff.

B. Determination

1) Whether the instant concession agreement is null and void

A) Whether it is invalid in violation of the Harbor Act and the Port Authority Act

According to the provisions of Articles 9(1) and (2), 17(1) and (3), 55(1) and (2) of the Harbor Act (amended by Act No. 9763 of Jun. 9, 2009; hereinafter referred to as the “harbor Act”), the Port Authority Act (amended by Act No. 9401 of Jan. 30, 2009; hereinafter referred to as the “Port Authority”) may be the main agent of the State, local government, public corporation, and non-management authority to implement the harbor project with the main agent of the project, and the State, local government, construction, etc. bears the cost of the harbor project, and if the non-management authority executes the harbor project, it shall be attributed to the State or local government, and the government shall be able to use the harbor facilities free of charge within the scope of the total project cost, and shall also be able to use the harbor facilities free of charge within the meaning of the State’s budget and its related public and private construction works. The purport of the State’s new and public construction works shall be understood.

In light of the above provisions and legislative intent, the concession agreement of this case provides that "the defendant, the plaintiff, the project operator", "the quasi-facilities of the sea route", and "the plaintiff bears the expenses to be borne by the plaintiff among the new loan dedicated areas and common areas prescribed within the scope of the project among the dredging expenses for the president."

However, the following circumstances, i.e., the overall purport of the arguments, which are acknowledged by adding up the aforementioned evidence, (1) The instant concession agreement is in accordance with the Port Authority Act with respect

The defendant shall be the main agent of the corporation and the burden of expenses. Of the port facilities, the ship owner among the port facilities seems to be the main agent of the corporation and the burden of expenses under the Harbor Act. ② The defendant shall bear the expenses of the plaintiff who is the non-management authority pursuant to Article 16 of the Harbor Act, ③ there is no express provision on the case where the non-management authority executes the port facilities construction at its own expense, ③ there is no provision on the case where the port authority executes the port facilities construction at its own expense, and there is no provision on the case where the port authority implements the port facilities construction at its own expense. The Port Authority was enacted to restrict the inflow of private capital, which is the legislative purpose of the Harbor Act. ④ The defendant, the owner of the sea route and the ship owner, who is the non-management authority, will be the main main agent of the corporation and the burden of expenses. The plaintiff's interest in the ship owner among the port facilities seems to be the main agent of the construction in this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the plaintiff's profits such as the increase of loading and unloading fees due to the large ship owner.

First, with respect to whether the Plaintiff’s facilities bearing the Plaintiff’s expenses were unfairly infringed upon the Plaintiff’s property rights by acquiring ownership without any justifiable compensation, or violated the constitutional equality principle, the Health Board demanded the Defendant to reduce or exempt the rent for the new vessel loan as compensation for the instant construction. However, the Defendant’s refusal to do so is as seen earlier. According to each of the statements in the evidence No. 14-1 and No. 2 of the evidence No. 14-2, according to the fact that the Defendant is implementing the increased dredging construction solely by bearing the cost in the case of Busan New Port,

However, as seen earlier, the part of the instant construction project, which the Plaintiff bears cost of dredging (Article 5(1) of the concession agreement of this case), can be acknowledged as follows: (i) the instant construction project is conducted at the Plaintiff’s request; (ii) it appears that consultation has been made several times on how the Plaintiff and the Defendant would bear the cost; (iii) it is deemed that the Plaintiff would be able to gratuitously use the ship owner, which is the port facilities it bears; and (iv) it is deemed that the Plaintiff’s operating director at the time of the conclusion of the instant concession agreement of this case was operated as a single line to delay dredging until it comes to a wharf; and (v) it appears that the Defendant would not have any other duty to maintain the Incheon vessel owner’s new facilities at the time of the conclusion of the dredging agreement of this case, and thus, it appears that the Plaintiff would not have any more than 5m of the Plaintiff’s new facilities at the time of the completion of dredging; and (v) it appears that the Plaintiff would have any other duty to maintain the new facilities than 7m of the Incheon vessel owner’s new facilities at the end of 1 to 7m.

Next, with respect to whether the purpose is illegal contracts, a juristic act in which one of the parties has obtained unjust benefits by abusing his/her dominant position or superior position, and the other party imposes an excessive benefit in return or other unjust burden, shall be deemed null and void as anti-social (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da34432, Apr. 26, 1996).

However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by adding the aforementioned evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, i.e., (i) the Plaintiff consented to the allocation of the project cost for the instant construction project, and agreed several times on the scope of sharing or the method of sharing, and (ii) the Plaintiff appears to be able to obtain profits from the free use of the part concerning the president, etc. of the fleet, etc., or from the connection with large container vessels, it is difficult to recognize that the Defendant was in an exclusive and superior position solely on the ground that the Plaintiff gains profits from the lease of a new vessel loan, or was a juristic act that imposes unfair burden on the other party upon the other party upon the conclusion of the instant concession agreement. There is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Finally, it is difficult to recognize that the instant concession agreement was a contract concluded to impose costs that cannot be imposed under the Harbor Act or the Port Act, in light of the fact that the Port Authority was enacted for the purpose of enhancing the expertise and efficiency of business affairs related to the development, management, and operation of harbor facilities and that it was not for the purpose of denying the method of attracting private capital in the harbor facilities construction under the law enacted for the purpose of enhancing the expertise and efficiency of business affairs related to the development, management, and operation of harbor facilities, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

C) Whether Article 104 of the Civil Act is against

The plaintiff, due to the business necessity, should promptly perform the dredging construction of the sea route and the captain of the vessel so that large container vessels can be connected, and the defendant has such situation of the plaintiff.

B. Inasmuch as the instant concession agreement was concluded with the Plaintiff, recognizing that the Plaintiff would bear expenses, the instant concession agreement asserts that the Plaintiff would lose fairness due to the Plaintiff’s pathy, and that the said agreement would have no effect pursuant to Article 104 of the Civil Act.

In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the following facts are established when an unfair legal act stipulated in Article 104 of the Civil Act exists objectively between benefits and consideration, and such an unfair legal act is established when a transaction which has lost balance as such, was conducted using gambling, rashness, or experience of the victimized party. The purpose of the act is to regulate gambling, rash, or experience of the victimized party. It is sufficient that the requirement for establishing an unfair legal act is not all required, but only part of gambling, rash, or experience, which can be met. The term "gambling" means an economic cause. It may be based on mental or psychological cause. It is difficult to determine whether the pertinent party was in an imminent situation. In light of the aforementioned legal principles as seen earlier, it is difficult to view that the pertinent agreement was concluded by the injured party as being 10 years old or 14 years old or 10 years old or 20 years old, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the pertinent agreement was concluded by the injured party.

2) Whether the instant concession agreement was cancelled due to the Defendant’s nonperformance of obligation

The Plaintiff concluded the instant concession agreement with a view to enabling the 10,000 TEU vessels to contact, and the Defendant bears the obligation to provide the Plaintiff with a wharf that 10,000 TEU vessels are able to contact, and the Defendant was unable to contact large vessels of 10,00TEU after the completion of the instant construction work, and the Defendant did not notify the Plaintiff at all even though he was well aware of the fact. In order to implement the reinforcement of the inner wall under the present situation, it is impossible to suspend the Plaintiff’s business in full, and such suspension of business is impossible due to its cost and loss. Thus, the Defendant’s obligation to make the 10,000 TEU vessels be able to contact large vessels of 10,00 TEU vessels is impossible, and thus, the instant concession agreement is rescinded.

As seen earlier, Article 2 subparag. 1 of the concession agreement of this case provides that "an increase in the capacity of a harbor by dredging 15 meters or more in the existing planned water depth at 16 meters." "The captain of a vessel" in Article 2 subparag. 3 of the concession agreement provides that "a vessel of 10,000 TEU level or higher shall be determined as the front sea area of the new line No. 4 lines (350 meters) and reduction number of tin (350 meters) and the place where containers above 10,00 TEU level or higher can safely change the direction of navigation after arrival at the wharf," and Article 6(1) of the concession agreement provides that "the joint area with another terminal in the increased area of 10,00 EU level or higher shall be determined as 16 meters, and that the vessel may not be recognized as being 0,000 EU level or higher than 10,000 EU level or more than 10,000,0000 won, as well as 0000,00 new bill for the reasons.

Even if the instant concession agreement includes the obligation to make the proposal available to 10,00 TEU level large vessels in accordance with the instant construction project, the following circumstances acknowledged by adding the entire purport of the pleadings to the statement in subparagraph 11, namely, the Defendant ordered the design service related to the public design construction for a large vessel; around January 2010, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to present his opinion related to the public design construction; around August 4 of the same year, the shop design was completed with the aim of strengthening the 192.5m of the 4 line, and the Plaintiff did not cooperate with the public design construction for the purpose of strengthening the 192.5m of the 192.5m of the 4 line. In light of the above, it is reasonable to deem that there is no cause attributable to the Defendant.

3) Whether there exists an agreement on the increased construction cost

The plaintiff asserts to the effect that the scope of dredging or dredging cost in the instant concession agreement has been determined and that the result of the shop design service was made in accordance with the concession agreement, and that the defendant arbitrarily extended the dredging range and increased the dredging cost and unilaterally notified the dredging cost.

However, with respect to the scope of the instant concession agreement, 4.0 m. and 4.0 m. and 4.0 m. and 0.0 m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. . m. m. m. m. m. m. m. . m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m.

3. Judgment on the conjunctive claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff, even if the concession agreement of this case is valid, the Harbor Act and the Port Authority prescribe that the construction cost shall be compensated for if the private person executes the construction of port facilities. Article 6 (4) of the concession agreement of this case provides that "In the event that construction works are conducted at the expense of the government or the defendant with regard to other container-only terminals in Busan, a mutual agreement on compensation for the expenses borne by the plaintiff. The defendant implements an increased dredging construction works at his own expense, and the part related to the reduced wharf is also borne by the defendant. Thus, the defendant bears the obligation to compensate for the construction cost to be borne by the plaintiff by the reduction of the rent.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to allow the Plaintiff to gratuitously use the above loan for the Plaintiff from April 2, 2012 to April 2, 2012, 13,262,643,450 of the Plaintiff’s construction cost charge, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to verify that the above right exists.

B. Determination

In light of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by adding the purport of the entire arguments as seen earlier, ① the Harbor Act and the Port Authority provides for the classification of the usage fees and the types of rents, and only the provision on the reduction of and exemption from the usage fees, and there is no provision on the reduction of and exemption from the usage fees. ② In the case of the instant concession agreement, the object of acquiring the right to use the port facilities constructed by the non-management authority at the expense of the non-management authority is not the right to use the wharf without compensation, and ③ in the event the harbor facilities other than the pertinent harbor facilities are used for the preservation of the total project cost required for the construction of the harbor facilities, it is difficult to view the provision on exemption from the usage fees of the port facilities as a mandatory provision. In light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to view that the entries of the evidence No. 17 and No. 22 are not sufficient to deem that the Plaintiff has the obligation to compensate the Defendant for the construction cost through the reduction of the usage

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiff's main and ancillary claims are dismissed as they are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Jin Jins

Judges Shin Nung-chul

(ii) works to deepen the depth of the seabed;

(iii)the place that makes it possible to return vessels; the sea area that enters the wharfs for the contact of vessels;