The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) D (hereinafter “the building of this case”) is a general property which was constructed at the expense of the Company B and entered into a contract with Mapo-si on the premise that the said Company B received construction costs and received operating profits, and there is no fact that the use has been legally changed to administrative property thereafter.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the first instance court’s duly adopted and examined: (i) the Gunposi constructed the instant building to use it as facilities to experience culture and learn language in foreign language, which is a regional specialization project; (ii) the Gunposi concluded an agreement with the above B to implement the construction and operation of the instant building as a public-private partnership project in accordance with the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Regulation on Special Zones for Special Zones for Regional Development; (iii) the construction of the instant building and the ownership of the instant building and the ownership of the building was reverted to the Gunposipo, and was entrusted with the said area’s specialization project for six years; and (iv) the building was newly constructed and operated as a public-private partnership; and (v) the building was actually used or determined to be used directly for the public-private partnership; (v) the construction or operation of the instant building as general property under Article 27(1) of the Public Property and Commodity Management Act (the head of a local government deems it necessary for efficient management of administrative property; and (v) the establishment or operation of the instant building as a general property under the Special Zone.