1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court in this case concerning the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to adding a judgment on the plaintiff's assertion as follows, and therefore, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. Article 26 (1) 2 (k) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Contracts to Which the State Is a Party, the instant BOT project contract can be concluded under a negotiated contract pursuant to Article 26 (1) 2 (k) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Contracts to Which the State Is a Party. Thus, the Plaintiff may not be deemed a ground for disciplinary action against the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff violated the duty of good faith by neglecting to conclude the instant BOT project contract under a negotiated contract. (2) Article 35 (3) of the Financial Accounting Rules of the private school institution determines that “Where it falls under any of the subparagraphs of Article 26 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Contracts to Which the State Is a Party is a Party, a negotiated contract may be concluded.” Article 26 (1) 2 (k) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Contracts to Which the State Is a Party provides that if a certain person purchases real estate, such as land and building, or leases property to a specific person, it may be concluded under a negotiated contract.

However, the instant BOT project cannot be deemed as “where competition cannot be established, such as where a particular person’s technology is required or only one person is the producer of the relevant goods,” and it does not constitute a case where a negotiated contract can be concluded pursuant to Article 26(1)2(k) of the Enforcement Decree.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the contract of this case can be concluded under a negotiated contract is without merit.

B. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion related to deviation and abuse of discretionary power, which is the Educational Directive of Daegu Metropolitan City.