1. The plaintiff (appointed party) shall dismiss the lawsuit added by this court.

2. The appeal by the plaintiff (appointed party).

Basic Facts

The court's explanation on this part is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The main point of the plaintiff's argument about the legitimacy of the lawsuit is to confirm that the plaintiff did not have the right to manage the commercial building of this case according to the status of market manager under Article 67 of the Traditional Markets Act, and that there was no right to manage according to the status of manager under Article 25 of the

Article 67 (1) of the Traditional Markets Act provides that "the head of a Si/Gun/Gu may designate a person who shall perform the duties of maintaining and managing commercial infrastructure from among the persons referred to in the subparagraphs of paragraph (2) if there is no person who shall perform the duties of the superstore operator pursuant to Article 12 (1) through (3) of the Distribution Industry Development Act in the relevant market." Paragraph (2) provides that a person falling under each subparagraph shall be designated as a market manager, and subparagraph 1 provides that "merchant's association established pursuant to Article 65 of the Traditional Markets Act."

In light of the above provisions of Article 67 of the Traditional Markets Act, the authority to act as a market manager or as a market manager shall not be deemed as a private right arising under Article 67(1) of the Traditional Markets Act, and it shall be deemed that the head of a Si/Gun/Gu falls under the status or authority of a public law arising from the designation of a merchants' association, etc. as a market manager pursuant to Article 67(1) of the Traditional Markets Act.

[2] As a result, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Head of the Busan High Court in order to seek confirmation of invalidity of the designation of the market manager against the Defendant, but the claim was dismissed, and the appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court (Supreme Court Decision 2018Du33074). Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.