Hex Construction Co., Ltd. (Law Firm LLC et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Incheon City Mayor (Law Firm Middle, Attorneys Hun-hee et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

APP Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Berne-ro et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

July 20, 2016

1. On August 4, 2015, the Defendant’s disposition of designating a person eligible for preferential negotiations on a private park development project against the Intervenor joining the Defendant and the Korea Investment Securities Co., Ltd. shall be revoked.

2. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising from the participation by the defendant shall be borne by the intervenor assisting the defendant, and the remainder shall be borne by the defendant.

The Plaintiff sought revocation of the “disposition for the Selection of Project Subjects,” but according to the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff appears to seek revocation of the disposition that the Defendant designated the Defendant’s Intervenor and the Korea Investment Securities Co., Ltd. as the priority negotiating party for the Nowon-gu Park Development Project for the Nowon-gu Park as the priority negotiating party for the project. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s purport

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Status of the parties

The plaintiff is a company engaged in civil engineering work, etc., and the defendant assistant intervenor (hereinafter referred to as "participating") is a company engaged in real estate investment business, etc.

B. The plaintiff's proposal submission and the defendant's request for supplementation

1) The Nowon-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Nowon-gu Park (hereinafter “instant park”) located in 160-13 Sung-dong, Seodong-dong, Seocheon-gu is a park under Article 2 subparag. 6 (b) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, and was determined as a park under the urban management plan around 1993, and is a park under Article 2 subparag. 3 (a) of the Act on Urban Parks, Greenbelts, Etc. (hereinafter “Urban Park”).

2) On November 2014, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant for prior consultation on a special project to create park and non-park facilities (hereinafter “instant project”) pursuant to Article 21-2(1) of the Act on the Management of Parks and Greenbelts in the instant park site, and submitted a proposal on February 13, 2015 to the Defendant regarding the instant project.

3) On February 27, 2015, the Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to supplement the details of the proposal, such as the location, lot number, land category, and size of the land or building, the specifications of the ownership and rights other than ownership, the owner thereof, the scheduled date for commencement of the project, and the scheduled completion date for completion of the project. However, on April 24, 2015, the Defendant urged the Plaintiff to supplement it until May 30, 2015.

C. Publication of the defendant's period for submitting proposals

However, on April 17, 2015, Hyundai B&A (hereinafter “NB”) submitted the instant proposal to the Defendant on April 17, 2015, and the other companies also sought the submission procedure of the instant proposal regarding the instant project. On May 28, 2015, the Defendant issued a public announcement of the period for submitting the proposal for a private park development project (hereinafter “instant public announcement”) with the following content as the notice No. 2015-688, May 28, 2015.

3. The term of submission of a proposal for the development of an urban park by a private park promoter pursuant to Articles 20 and 21 of the Act on Parks and Greenbelts, the term of submission of a proposal for a development project of the Nowon-gu Park: 1. The name of the site: The location of the Nowon-do Park: 160-13 large area: 25,158С 2. The document that shall be included in the proposal: Articles 20 and 21 of the Act on Parks and Greenbelts, and the guidelines on the special cases of development activities (Article 494 of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport’s directives on February 24, 2015; hereinafter “instant guidelines”); the term of submission of a proposal for the development project of the Nowon-gu Park Park under the provisions of Articles 20 and 21 of the same Act; the term of submission of a proposal for the development project of the private park promoter-si; the term of receipt of a proposal for the selection of a specialized institution, including the next 2 proposal for the receipt of the proposal:

D. Defendant’s notice of submission of the proposal to Plaintiff

On June 1, 2015, the defendant secured the period necessary to supplement the proposal and given an opportunity to further proposer to select the first priority negotiating party, and notified the deadline for submission of the proposal as of June 30, 2015, referring to the public announcement, and notified the Plaintiff of the proposal as the shipment within the deadline.

(e) Submission of proposals by intervenors, etc.;

By June 30, 2015, after the instant announcement, the Defendant submitted the proposal to the Defendant by the Plaintiff, Hyundai F&A, and SP International Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “CSF”), and the Intervenor submitted the proposal as a joint proposal with the Korea Investment Securities Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Korea Investment Securities Co., Ltd”).

F. Results of the defendant's proposal evaluation

1) On July 27, 2015, the Defendant: (a) held an urban park committee; (b) obtained advice on the evaluation of proposals submitted by the Plaintiff, Hyundai B&C; (c) SSF; (d) the Intervenor and the Korea Investment Securities Association based on the advice of the urban park committee; (c) assessed proposals submitted by the Plaintiff, Hyundai B&C; (d) SSF; (e) the Intervenor and the Korea Investment Securities Association based on the evaluation item column in the attached Table 1 (hereinafter “evaluation item”); and (e) the points that the Defendant finally granted to the Plaintiff, Hyundai B&C; and (e) are as indicated in the item corresponding to the evaluation item column in the instant case; and (e) the points that the Intervenor and the Korea Investment Securities Association submitted to the Plaintiff are deemed to have the highest number of the points that the Plaintiff submitted to the Plaintiff on July 30, 2015, based on the premise that the Intervenor and the Korea Investment Securities Association were 2.7, the Plaintiff’s proposal should be deemed to have the highest number of points to be the Plaintiff’s proposal 15.

2) At the time of the public announcement of the instant case, the Defendant did not disclose each evaluation items and allocated points to the public.

(g) Notification of the defendant's acceptance of proposals by participants and Korean investment securities;

On August 4, 2015, the defendant notified the intervenor that he will accept the proposal of the intervenor and the Korean investment securities (hereinafter “instant notification”) in accordance with the provision of the 3-4-4 of this case. On the same day, the plaintiff’s proposal falls under the second order as a result of the evaluation of the proposal, and the plaintiff’s proposal falls under the second order, and the plaintiff's proposal was notified as a plan to review the plaintiff’s acceptance of the proposal if the cause of disqualification occurs

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 10, Eul evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 and 2, non-party 1's testimony and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The defendant and the intervenor's defense of this safety

The instant guidelines distinguish the implementation procedures for development activities in a site for urban parks by means of a public contest and proposal. In the case of a public contest, the Defendant’s selection of project subjects through the proposal review committee while, in the case of a proposal, the Defendant’s acceptance of the proposal submitted by the proposing company is determined. However, the Defendant’s notification to the Intervenor and the Korean Investment Securities was accepted according to the proposal. However, the Defendant’s notification was merely notification of the intent to accept the proposal on an equal basis with the Intervenor and Korean Investment Securities, and it cannot be deemed an administrative disposition exercising public power in the position of an administrative agency. Thus, the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

B. Procedure for implementing the instant project

1) Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 of the instant Guidelines classify the implementation procedures for development activities in the urban park site as prescribed by Article 21-2(1) of the Park greenbelts Act by the method of a proposal and a public contest. The implementation procedures under the proposal are conducted in the order of “pre-consultation ? Proposal ? Proposal ? Feasibility review, negotiation on proposal ? advice on urban park committee, consultation on acceptance or acceptance of proposal ? Deliberation on Urban Park Committee / Local Urban Planning Committee / Decision on Urban Planning Committee / Designation of an implementer ” (instant Guidelines 3-1-1). On the other hand, the implementation procedures by a public contest are conducted in the order of “Selection of a project object ? Selection of a private park ? Selection of a project object ? Selection of a project object ? Selection of a project object ? negotiation ? conclusion of an Urban Park Committee / Local Urban Planning Committee / Designation of an implementer” (instant Guidelines 4-1-1). In the event a local government receives a proposal in the process of a public contest, the name and location of the relevant park site /land site (land category) and size.

2) In light of the provisions of the instant guidelines, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant promoted the instant project in accordance with the process of implementing the proposal, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the facts and the evidence as seen earlier.

A) Before the announcement of the instant case, the Defendant did not state “minimum conditions, such as the name and location of the subject park, the current state of land in the park site (area by land category), the use of the non-park facility site, density, etc.,” which are essential to be included in the public invitation in the instant public announcement.

B) The Defendant stated the legal basis for the instant notification as “instant guidelines 3-4-4”, and the said provision is a provision on whether to accept the proposal of the enforcement procedure under the proposal.

C) Under the provisions of the instant guidelines, the Defendant did not simultaneously exclude the Defendant from receiving proposals from large number of companies, and thus, the Defendant’s announcement of this case that urged large number of unspecified companies to submit proposals by a specific deadline cannot be deemed a public offering (in the case of “Guidelines on Special Cases Concerning the Creation of Private Park” on June 2016 of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport does not specify the use, density, etc. of the non-park facility site in the detailed method of implementation by the proposal, and refers to the method of submitting proposals from large number of private park promoters by selecting and publicly announcing a park to be developed pursuant to Article 21-2 of the Park and Park greenbelts Act.

D) The instant guidelines stipulate that the proposal process shall be subject to feasibility review, consultation with the Urban Park Committee, and that the relevant project implementer shall be notified of the acceptance of the proposal through a public offering. The instant public notice states that “decision on the acceptance of the proposal, such as feasibility review,” and the Defendant has consulted with the Urban Park Committee before assessing the proposal submission companies including the Plaintiff, while the proposal review committee did not undergo the proposal review.

C. Whether the instant notice constitutes an administrative disposition

The guidelines of this case stipulate that the project implementer shall be designated by agreement with the designated potential concessionaire after designating the potential concessionaire from among the persons who submitted the proposal in the case of the execution procedure by proposal. The notification of this case is designated by the defendant in accordance with the execution procedure by proposal (Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion seeking cancellation of the disposition of this case selected by the public offering on the premise that the notification of this case is the execution procedure by public offering is the execution procedure by public offering will seek cancellation of

However, Article 2 subparagraph 1 (u) of the Act on Private Participation in Infrastructure (hereinafter “Private Investment Act”) provides that parks referred to in subparagraph 3 (a) of Article 2 of the Act on Private Participation in Parks and Greenbelts shall be infrastructure facilities, and Article 3 (1) of the same Act provides that the Act on Private Participation in Infrastructure shall take precedence over the relevant Acts with respect to public-private partnership projects. However, since the instant park falls under parks referred to in subparagraph 3 (a) of Article 2 of the Act on Private Participation in Parks and Greenbelts, as seen earlier, the Act on Public-Private Partnerships shall apply in cases where a private investor promotes development activities in the instant park site, and according to Articles 18 through 20 of the Act on Private Participation in Infrastructure, a public-private partnership project operator may enter other persons’ land, use State-owned or public-private property without compensation, and expropriate or use

In addition, when a private park promoter obtains designation of an urban or Gun planning facility project operator and authorization for an implementation plan under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”), he/she is deemed to have obtained authorization or permission under the relevant Acts (Articles 21, 86(5), 88(2), and 92(1) of the Park and Greenbelts Act), and when a private park promoter donates an urban park to the park management agency, he/she may implement a supplementary project pursuant to Article 21 of the Private Investment Act if he/she donates the urban park to the park management agency. Where the competent authority announces an implementation plan for a supplementary project or announces the implementation of a supplementary project, he/she is deemed to have obtained authorization or permission related to the relevant supplementary project (Article 21-2(8) of the Park and Greenbelts Act, Article 21 of the Private Investment Act, and Article 21 of the Private Investment Act, if the private park promoter designated as the project operator fails to file an application for authorization of the implementation plan within one year from the date of designation, he/she shall be obligated

Comprehensively taking account of the above, the legal relationship with respect to the act of designating the executor of the instant project cannot be deemed as a mere judicial relationship, and it shall be deemed as a public power act by an administrative agency imposing rights and obligations under public law on a superior position.

However, a business entity designated as a priority negotiation entity by the Defendant is entitled to be designated as a project entity through negotiations with the Defendant first, while a business entity not designated as a priority negotiation entity is deprived of or reserved for the status of the project entity by being excluded from negotiations. Therefore, since the designation of a priority negotiation entity is closely related to the substantive legal relationship of the business entity who submitted the proposal as a premise to obtain the status of a public law entity, the designation of a priority negotiation entity constitutes an administrative disposition that is subject to appeal litigation. Therefore, the defense by the Defendant and the Intervenor is groundless

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) procedural defect

Article 43(8) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on Contracts to Which a Local Government Is a Party (amended by Presidential Decree No. 27491, Sep. 13, 2016; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Local Contracts Act”); Article 43(8) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Contracts Act; and Article 43(8) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Contracts Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 27491, Sep. 13, 2016

Even if Article 43(8) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Contracts Act does not apply to the public notice of this case, the Defendant is obligated to publish specific evaluation standards for the public notice of this case pursuant to Article 20(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act, and thus, the disposition of this case is unlawful.

2) A deviation from or abuse of discretionary power

Since the defendant granted wrong points to the plaintiff and the intervenor in violation of the criteria for dispositions that the defendant himself has set, the disposition of this case based on this is unlawful as it deviates from and abused discretionary power.

A) The Defendant assessed the ability to raise funds as nine points on the premise that the Asian Trust Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “A Trust”), the Scco Construction, and the Mcco Construction, and the Mclim Industry are the participants and the Korean Investment Securities, and the Asian Trust, the Scco Construction, and the Mcco Construction are not financial institutions. Since the Intervenor did not submit its intent to participate in each of the above companies, it cannot be recognized as a financial participating entity. Also, even if it is deemed as a document corresponding to the letter of intent to participate in the joint agreement made between the Intervenor, the Korean Investment Securities, the Asian Trust, the Scco Construction, and the Mcco Construction and the Mcco Construction and the Mclim Industry as a document corresponding to the letter of intent to participate in the agreement, it cannot be deemed that the Asian Trust, the Scco Construction and the Mclim Industry as a financial participating entity. Accordingly, the Intervenor’s ability to raise funds should not be calculated as six points.

B) The item of “the financial structure of the manager” in the instant assessment table shall be evaluated based on the financial structure of the special purpose corporation that actually implements the project in the future. However, the Defendant granted 9 points to the Plaintiff as a result of evaluating the financial structure of the proposing company based on the financial structure condition of the proposing company, which is unlawful. It is deemed that the Plaintiff was erroneous in applying the assessment criteria set by the Defendant itself. Since the Plaintiff is expected to establish a special purpose corporation of KRW 24 billion in capital in the future, the Plaintiff should have been granted 10 points

C) The Plaintiff received the lowest score from among the proposal points of “reasonable of the introduced facilities” to 46 points in the instant evaluation items list. The content of the proposal submitted by the Plaintiff is an independent and excellent plan to enhance the urban functions of the astronomical City, and it is unreasonable for the Defendant to give a lower score to the Plaintiff as an evaluation lack of objectivity and fairness.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form 2 shall be as listed in attached Table 2.

C. Determination

1) Whether procedural defects exist

A) Whether Article 43(8) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Contracts Act is applied

Article 43(1) and (8) of the Enforcement Decree of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Contracts Act provides that the head of a local government or a contracting officer may enter into a contract with a person deemed the most favorable to the relevant local government from among those who have submitted proposals from a large number of suppliers and submitted a bid at a price below the estimated price plus value added tax. The examination of capabilities to perform the contract shall be conducted in accordance with the detailed criteria and procedures determined by the head of the relevant local government in accordance with the standards determined by the Minister of the Interior, comprehensively considering the performance results, technical ability, project execution plan, financial status, and bid price of a person who intends to enter into the contract, and shall allow a person who intends to enter into the contract to enter into the contract to peruse them. However, since Article 43(1) and (8) of the Enforcement Decree of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Contracts Act and the standards for determining successful bidders at the time of a local government's tender under the Local Contracts Act are applicable to the tendering procedure under Article 2

B) Whether Article 20(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act is violated

Article 20(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act provides that an administrative agency shall determine and publicly announce the necessary disposition standards to the extent possible in light of the nature of the relevant disposition. The purpose of the system is to prevent arbitrary exercise of authority by the administrative agency and ensure transparency and predictability in administration. Thus, the administrative agency has the duty to establish and publicly announce the disposition standards as much as possible so far as the nature of the relevant disposition permits (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Du5148, Aug. 25, 201). Meanwhile, Article 20 of the Administrative Procedures Act provides that an announcement of the disposition standards under Article 20(2) of the Administrative Procedures Act may not be made in cases where the nature of the relevant disposition is considerably difficult in light of the nature of the relevant disposition or where there are reasonable grounds to be deemed to significantly undermine the public safety and welfare, or where dispositions are made flexibly in consideration of individual cases by granting discretionary authority to the administrative agency within a certain scope within the scope of scope, and thus, an administrative agency may, as long as it has already been made public within the scope of 2084.284.1.

In light of the following circumstances, which are recognized as a comprehensive assessment of the contents of the instant guidelines as to the instant case’s facts, the Defendant’s announcement of the outlined evaluation criteria for the instant proposal, and even if the Defendant did not present detailed evaluation items, allocated allocation criteria, and allocated allocation criteria, it appears that the proposal companies including the Plaintiff could have sufficiently predicted the relevant detailed evaluation items. Thus, the instant disposition cannot be deemed unlawful in violation of Article 20(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act.

(1) 이 사건 지침 3-3-2은 제안서에 포함되어야 할 사항으로 ㉠ 사업의 종류 및 명칭, ㉡ 사업시행자의 성명 및 주소, ㉢ 토지 또는 건물의 소재지·지번·지목 및 면적, 소유권과 소유권 외의 권리의 명세 및 그 소유자·권리자의 성명·주소, ㉣ 사업의 착수예정일 및 준공예정일, ㉤ 사업의 총비용, 사업의 총수익, 자금조달계획(투자계획 및 재원조달방안 포함), ㉥ 전체 공원부지에 대한 공원조성계획(공원조성의 개발목표 및 개발방향, 자연·인문·관광환경에 대한 조사 및 분석자료, 공원조성에 따른 토지의 이용, 동선, 공원시설의 배치, 상수도·하수도·쓰레기처리장·주차장 등의 기반시설, 조경 및 식재 등에 대한 부문별 계획, 공원조성에 따른 영향 및 효과), ㉦ 도시공원, 도시계획, 회계 등을 전문으로 하는 기관이나 기업에서 타당성조사 등을 감안하여 작성한 공원시설과 비공원시설의 규모, 배치, 형태, 공사시간, 개략공사비, 토지매수비용, 기본구상도 등 비용평가와 비공원시설의 분양(매각) 등 수익평가에 필요한 자료, ㉧ 기타 특례사업 추진을 위하여 필요한 사항을 규정하고 있으므로, 원고를 비롯한 제안사들로서는 위 각 자료를 기초로 평가가 이루어진다는 것을 충분히 예상할 수 있다.

In other words, among the quantitative evaluation items of the assessment items of this case, the items ① "reasonable calculation of land purchase cost" is the data related to the purchase cost of this case; ② "Verification of feasibility, such as a specialized institution for preparation of data necessary for appraisal of profits, such as sale (sale) of non-park facilities" is the data necessary for appraisal of profits, such as sale (sale) of non-park facilities, prepared by the guidelines of this case in consideration of the feasibility study conducted by an institution or enterprise specialized in urban parks, urban planning, accounting, etc.; ③ "fund procurement capacity items" and "financial structure conditions of the manager" items of the guidelines of this case provide that the guidelines of this case shall be submitted, and the data about financing plan and financing plan are prescribed to be submitted. In light of the fact that the guidelines of this case provides that ① the objective and direction-setting of the park development is appropriate, ② the data about the development purpose and development direction of the park, ② the survey and analysis of the natural, human, and tourism environment, ③ the appropriateness of the facilities introduced the guidelines of this case, ④ the suitability of the urban planning facilities, etc.

(2) The project in this case requires a wide range of discretion since the project in this case requires the administrative agency to make a professional and technical judgment in order to evaluate the proposal, since the project in this case is a project that creates park and non-park facilities in this case, there is no special restriction on the types, size, and composition of the park and non-park facilities in submitting the proposal. However, since the purport of granting discretion to the administrative agency in discretionary action is to allow the administrative agency to make the most appropriate disposition in accordance with specific matters, there is an inherent limit in setting the disposition standards in the case of discretionary action. In particular, since the administrative agency has gone through the implementation procedure in this case, unlike the public offering procedure that first presented the name and location of the park in this case, the land status of the park site in this case, and the minimum conditions for the non-park facility site in this case, it seems that there is a big difference in the contents, expertise, creativity, and artistic value of the proposal submitted by each proposing. Thus, the defendant seems to have difficulty in setting the detailed evaluation items in advance prior to the submission of the proposal.

2) Whether the discretion is deviates or abused

As seen earlier, the Defendant’s high level of professional and technical judgment is required in selecting a person subject to preferential bargaining for the instant project. As such, the Defendant’s evaluation of a person subject to preferential bargaining should be respected as much as possible, but the evaluation result cannot be said to be binding even when it lacks objective rationality or feasibility, such as contrary to the criteria set by the Defendant himself/herself.

A) Items of financing capacity

We examine whether the assessment of the defendant's ability to raise funds against the intervenor lacks objective rationality and feasibility.

If Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5, Eul, and Eul evidence Nos. 8 and witness testimony of non-party 1 show the purport of the whole pleadings, the intervenor's joint agreement (Evidence No. 5) signed on June 26, 2015 between the intervenor, Korea Investment Securities, Asian Trust, Poco Construction, and Daelim Construction, accompanying the intervenor's presentation of the proposal to the defendant, shall provide and secure funds necessary for the implementation of the project as joint representative proposal and provide the necessary financing and internal credit extension through internal deliberation as joint representative proposer and financial intermediary, and the large industry and Spanco Construction shall perform the duty of completion of the liability as a representative director of the construction, and shall decide whether to participate in the project in consultation with the intervenor, separately from the participation as a part of the contractor, and the facts that the intervenor's participation in the financing project is based on the list of financial parties' ability to participate in the project, i.e., Korean investment securities and investment bond certificates submitted by the intervenor, the evaluation items of the financial investment project of this case, and the evaluation items of the defendant's participation in the project.

According to the facts acknowledged above, “financial participating enterprise” under the evaluation items table of this case is not limited to financial institutions, and the defendant set the documents to be submitted by “written intent to participate, letter of commitment, etc.” in calculating the number of financial participating enterprises, this is not limited to the intent to participate, letter of commitment, and it is unnecessary to submit to the executor the documents stating the intent to raise and invest funds for the implementation of the project. However, the joint agreement submitted by the intervenor, stating “decision on whether to participate in the project under consultation with the Korean Investment Securities, the Intervenor,” alone, cannot be deemed as a conclusive and explicit indication of the intent to provide or raise funds to the intervenor for the implementation of the project of this case. Accordingly, the points of the items of financing ability of the intervenor should be six points (where the financial participating enterprise is a Korean Investment Securities, one Korean Investment Securities) and the assignment of points to the intervenor is contrary to the evaluation criteria set by the defendant himself/herself.

B) Items of financial structure status of the manager

In light of the written evidence Nos. 4 and 5 and the witness testimony of Nonparty 1, the Defendant’s evaluation of the proposal of the Plaintiff and the Intervenor, deeming that the financial structure condition (scale of manager’s capital) item of the manager’s financial structure (scale of manager’s capital) among the instant evaluation items in the instant evaluation items refers to “a proposal” submitted, and thus, it can be acknowledged that the Plaintiff granted nine points from 10 billion won to 19.9 billion won to the Plaintiff and six points to the Intervenor as the presentation of documentary evidence.

However, in light of the fact that the defendant uses the term "general manager" separately from the above evaluation items, the term "general manager" means "general manager responsible for and responsible for any work," and the purpose of setting the financial structure of the manager (scale of the manager's capital) items as evaluation items is to determine the capacity to implement the project of this case at the level of financial soundness of the company that implements the project of this case, it is reasonable to deem that the above evaluation items "general manager" is not the proposing company, but the actual executor of the project of this case in the future.

If Gap evidence Nos. 8 and Eul evidence Nos. 2 show the overall purport of the pleadings, according to the plaintiff's proposal submitted to the defendant, it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff did not specify the amount of capital to be invested in Korea Investment Securities, Asia Trust, Large Forest Industry, and Spanco Construction, as well as the amount of capital to be invested by Taeil Industries, Taeil Industries Co., Ltd., 3 billion won, New Co., Ltd., 3 billion won, New Co., Ltd., 3 billion won, New Co., Ltd., 3 billion won, and Lee Jin Industries Development Co., Ltd., 1 billion won.

Therefore, even though the defendant should have given 9 points to the plaintiff more than 20 billion won in accordance with the criteria set by the evaluation table of this case, giving 9 points to the plaintiff was in violation of the criteria set by the defendant himself/herself for evaluation, which lack objective rationality and feasibility (the defendant did not submit data to know the amount of capital to be invested by the intervenor, and it is justifiable to give 6 points to the intervenor). This part of the plaintiff's assertion is reasonable.

C) the adequacy item of the introduced facility;

In light of the written evidence Nos. 4, 5, 8, and 15, the Plaintiff submitted a proposal to introduce multi-family housing and hotel as non-park facilities and to procure business expenses by selling the hotel site in the instant park site. Upon consultation with the Urban Park Deliberation Committee, the Defendant may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff granted 46 points to the Plaintiff as to the appropriate item of the introduced facility, based on the possibility of selling the hotel site through consultation with the Urban Park Deliberation Committee, the plan to procure business expenses in the event that the hotel site was not sold, the number and size of the hotel located in the city in the tent, etc., and the judgment of the Defendant cannot be deemed to lack objective rationality or feasibility. Accordingly, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

D) Items for feasibility verification, such as specialized agencies;

An intervenor submitted a consulting report and a review report on the project feasibility prepared by a Gao appraisal corporation, Inc. (hereinafter “Gao appraisal corporation”) as data necessary for the Plaintiff’s evaluation of revenues. The Gao appraisal corporation is a company which has appraised the price of the proposal submitted by the Plaintiff, and the Gao engineering is a company which has prepared a proposal, and it does not constitute data necessary for the evaluation of revenues, such as cost evaluation and the sale of non-park facilities, by considering the feasibility study, etc. conducted by an institution specialized in accounting, etc., and the sale of non-park facilities, etc., so it is unreasonable that the Plaintiff received 4 points even though it was subject to 3 points from an “unverification” under the verification item, such as an institution specialized in the preparation of data necessary for the evaluation of revenues, such as the sale of non-park facilities (sale).

In addition to the contents of evidence Nos. 8 and 14, the plaintiff prepared a proposal and received a feasibility study on the preparation of data necessary for the evaluation of profit, such as the sale (sale) of non-park facilities from the Sejong Engineering and the certified public accountant No. 2, and it can be recognized that the defendant submitted a written review opinion on the feasibility review report prepared by the Sejong Engineering and the business feasibility review report prepared by the non-party No. 2 to the defendant. Thus, it is justifiable for the defendant to grant 4 points to the plaintiff on the premise that the above evaluation item constitutes "verification by a corporation, etc.". This part of the intervenor'

E) Sub-decisions

Thus, although the defendant should have given 6 points to the intervenor in the items of financing ability among the items of assessment of this case, 9 points were given to the plaintiff, and 10 points were given to the plaintiff in the items of financial structure condition of the supervisor. This is in violation of the criteria for assessment set by the defendant himself, which lack objective rationality and validity. Accordingly, if the plaintiff and the intervenor were to pay the points to the plaintiff and the intervenor, the intervenor's total point 83.56 points and the plaintiff's 87.33 points and the plaintiff's highest point are the plaintiff's highest point, so the disposition of this case designating the intervenor who is not the plaintiff who is not the plaintiff in braille as the subject of priority negotiation

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment Omission]

Judges Park Man-man (Presiding Judge)

(1) The Plaintiff sought revocation of the “disposition for the Selection of Project Subjects,” but according to the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff appears to have sought revocation of the disposition that the Defendant designated the Defendant’s Intervenor and the Korea Investment Securities Company as the priority negotiation subject of the Nowon-gu Park Development Project for the Nowon-gu Park as the preferred negotiation subject of the project. Therefore, the Plaintiff