1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The plaintiff A added the defendant E at the trial.

1. Basic facts

A. The G Center’s profit-making business on the side of the F University 1) F University and the Defendant Educational Foundation C (hereinafter “Defendant C”) operating the said university

(2) On May 24, 2010, the G Center of the F University and the new building of sports halls (hereinafter “instant building”) are “the part of the instant building.”

Defendant D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant D”) for a profit-making business using it.

(2) On March 4, 2011, FUD entered into a comprehensive consignment management agreement with Defendant D on the instant building, and Defendant D changed its trade name to E on August 24, 2011. Defendant H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant E”), and Defendant D entered into a comprehensive consignment management agreement on the instant building with the term of contract for ten years, with regard to the instant building.

3) However, the Ministry of Education, upon notification of the audit results to the F University around January 2013, demanded the F University to terminate all the contracts entered into between the F University and the Defendant D and the Defendant E. Accordingly, on February 15, 2013, Defendant C held a board of directors and terminated all the contracts entered into between Defendant D and the Defendant E. (iv) on June 25, 2013 and November 21, 2013, the F University held a meeting of the concession agreement on profit-making private investment projects with Defendant E and the instant building, and notified Defendant E that Defendant E should be selected as priority negotiation partners on June 25, 2013.

Defendant C filed an application with the Ministry of Education for permission to manage the facilities of private capital inducement education on two occasions on July 2013, and around November 2013, the Ministry of Education applied for permission to manage the facilities of private capital inducement education.

B. Plaintiff A’s international school establishment and operation attempt 1) Plaintiff A was equipped with a plan to establish and operate an international school by leasing the instant building part from Defendant E while the instant building leased by Defendant E as a member of the Plaintiff church. Plaintiff A was equipped with a plan to establish and operate the said building part. 2)