1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the instant principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be the principal lawsuit.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition and additional determination as follows. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

(1) The court of first instance is just and the legal judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the court of first instance, even if the evidence submitted is fully examined. 【Supplementary part of the court of first instance” No. 5, No. 13 of the court of first instance, “The following are added.”

“The Supreme Court Decision 2004Da31074 and Supreme Court Decision 2015Da256794 cited by the Defendant is related to an administrative disposition conducted in a superior position with public power, or a contract to which a public enterprise subject to the Act on the Management of Contracts or Public Institutions to which the State is a Party is a Party and thus, is not applicable to this case).”

2. Additional judgment;

A. First, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s correction of a party indication is unlawful, but the alteration of a party indication is allowed only to the extent that it is recognized as identical to the person indicated as a party (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da8333, Jun. 14, 1991). According to the corporation registration certificate submitted by the Plaintiff on August 26, 2019, the Plaintiff merely changed the Plaintiff’s trade name on January 8, 2019 to K, and its registration number is identical. Thus, the Plaintiff’s change of a party indication constitutes a change of only the Plaintiff’s indication within the extent that its identity is recognized, and the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

B. In addition, the Defendant asserted that C’s entering into the instant lease agreement with the Plaintiff in violation of the terms of permission for use of state property and benefit therefrom is contrary to the good faith principle. However, the Defendant’s sole basis is that