The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance.

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s acceptance of the judgment is the same as the statement of the reasoning of the judgment of first instance, except in the following cases. Thus, it shall be accepted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The 3 pages of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be amended to "a conciliation" in the 16th sentence inside the 16th sentence of the writing box.

The F facilities, etc. (hereinafter referred to as “the F facilities, etc.”) shall be revised to “the F facilities, etc. (hereinafter referred to as “the F”)” in the first instance judgment.

He/she shall revise "H" in the fourth and fifth parallel parallel of the first instance judgment to "K".

The part of “A. Plaintiff’s assertion” in the first instance judgment from 5 pages 8 to 6 pages 1 is amended as follows.

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is obligated to cooperate with the Plaintiff in realizing profit by operating the instant F in accordance with Articles 6(3), 8, 10(9), 10(10), and 13(1) and (3) of the instant Convention. Such Defendant’s duty to cooperate constitutes a duty to actively cooperate with the Plaintiff in realizing profit, beyond passive interference with the Plaintiff’s realization of profit.

Nevertheless, the defendant violated the duty to cooperate of the defendant in accordance with the Convention by unilaterally changing the method of collecting charges and fees without such consultation, even though it is necessary to consult with the plaintiff about the appropriate method of collecting charges and fees in accordance with the agreement in the course of running the I Project, which is a large-scale tech including changing the phenomenon of operating D facilities and E facilities, etc.

As a result, the Plaintiff unilaterally changed the operating method of the instant F from September 2018 to October 31, 2019, which was the expiration date of the operating agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. However, in the absence of the Defendant’s default during the said period, the Plaintiff suffered damages due to the Defendant’s nonperformance.