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 of first instance cited by the court of first instance is as follows: (a) the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal or addition as set forth in paragraph (2) below.

2. Parts 3, 10 to 18, 3, 3, 100, 100 and 100,000 shall be added as follows:

“. However, the G consortium Co., Ltd., a member of the G consortium, filed an administrative suit against the head of the Young-do Busan Metropolitan City Office seeking the revocation of the instant preferential bargaining subject, and the Plaintiff participated in the administrative suit for the Plaintiff. Busan District Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim (the Busan District Court 2016Guhap23142), the Busan High Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal (the Busan High Court 2018Nu2029), and the above judgment became final and conclusive as it is (the grounds for recognition). [The fact that there is no dispute, Gap’s evidence 1 through 3, Eul’s evidence 1 through 3, and evidence 5 through 7 (including the number of pages), the same shall apply hereinafter.

(2) 6 pages 6 of the whole purport of the pleading:

The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that, even in cases where the contract was not concluded at the negotiation stage for the conclusion of the contract, etc., the Plaintiff is liable for negligence under the conclusion of the contract under Article 535 of the Civil Act. However, in a case where the contract was not concluded as a result of a doctor’s inconsistency, apart from whether the party who suffered losses may claim for the return of unjust enrichment or for tort, the other party who suffered losses therefrom may be liable to compensate for damages arising from the conclusion of the contract by analogical application of Article 535 of the Civil Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Da10929, Nov. 14, 2017). As such, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is not acceptable. 6 pages 16

On the other hand, the Defendant’s purpose of reclamation of the land subject to the instant project by the Board of Audit and Inspection is not “commercial site,” but “living facility site.”