1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company that aims at real estate development business, etc.

From July 2006, the Defendant has operated a public parking lot (C public parking lot) of 32 pages on the ground of the parking area on the land of 864.3 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) owned by the Defendant from Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On July 6, 2016, the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant a plan to permit the use and profit-making of the instant parking building for 20 years pursuant to the Public Property and Commodity Management Act (hereinafter “Public Property Act”) with the content that “The Plaintiff, on the instant land, built a parking building with the size of one story, 12 stories on the ground, 2,380 square meters [2,170 square meters [2,170 square meters in parking lots (32 square meters in parking lots), 112 square meters in parking spaces (mechanic 80, ceiling stocks), neighborhood living facilities, and 210 square meters in neighborhood living facilities (8.8% in parking lots], and donated it to the Defendant. The Defendant submitted a plan to permit the use and profit-making of the instant parking building for 20 years to the Plaintiff pursuant to the “Public Property Act” (hereinafter “Public Property Act”).

(hereinafter “instant application” and the Plaintiff’s plan to permit the use and profit-making of the instant parking building donated by the Plaintiff includes the details of an application for permission to the Defendant so that it can be used and profit-making free of charge pursuant to the Public Property Act. Thus, this constitutes an application for permission to use and profit-making under the Public Property Act; hereinafter “instant application.” (hereinafter “instant application”). C. The instant project proposed by the Plaintiff in the instant application is the same as “instant project”).

On April 19, 2017, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the result of the review as follows (hereinafter “instant disposition”), and it is evident that the Defendant’s notification of the result of the review is refusing the Plaintiff’s application for permission of use and profit-making without compensation, which constitutes a rejection disposition against the instant application; hereinafter “instant disposition”).

The results of a comprehensive examination of all the matters through the relevant departments and meetings, etc.