The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, and the remainder are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court determined that Article 19 of the Act on Contracts to Which the State is a Party (hereinafter “State Contract Act”) shall not apply to the instant Convention, and that Article 9(1) of the Special Conditions of the instant Convention shall not apply to the extent that the Defendant’s approval is necessary for the adjustment of the contract price according to price fluctuation, etc., and that it shall not be deemed an unfair special agreement prohibited under Article 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the instant Convention, nor a violation of the principle of trust protection or the principle of proportionality.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the scope of application of the State Contracts Act, interpretation of the disposal document, interpretation of Article 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the State Contracts Act, and

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the Intervenor, and the remainder is assessed against the Plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.