1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (including relevant Acts and subordinate statutes), except for adding a decision on the plaintiff's argument in the court of first instance as set forth below or as set forth in paragraph (2) of the same Article. Thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Attachment] In the first B paragraph of the second written public notice, the term "tour loading and unloading" shall be deemed as "coal loading and unloading".

o The term “harbor” that is to be reduced to the third below is to read “former Harbor Act (amended by Act No. 9773 of Jun. 9, 2009 (amended by Act No. 9773 of Dec. 10, 2009)” (hereinafter the same shall apply).

o 6th of the 6th "Enforcement Rule of the Harbor Act" is the former Enforcement Rule of the Harbor Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 187 of December 14, 2009).

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant disposition is an alteration of the project implementer, even though it did not have any provision regarding the change of the project implementer under the former Harbor Act or permission thereof, so in order for the instant consortium to establish a separate corporation and implement the project, the instant disposition that allowed the Defendant to change the supplementary participant established without following the above procedure to the project implementer is invalid due to its illegality, even though it was required to have prepared and submitted a project plan including the establishment plan pursuant to Article 14 of the Act on Public-Private Partnerships in Infrastructure and designated the pertinent corporation as the project implementer on condition

B. We examine the judgment, the instant harbor project is not a construction on a project designated as a project subject to private investment pursuant to Article 8-2 or 9 of the Act on Public-Private Partnerships in Infrastructure, but a non-management authority, which is defined in the former Harbor Act, implemented with permission pursuant to Article 9(2) of the same Act.