1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, through a bid, was selected as a successful bidder for the use of a golf club in the physical training hall (gymnasium) of the Defendant-affiliated B, and entered into an operation agreement with the head of the B institution on July 1, 2011 to June 30, 201, with the period of time fixed from July 1, 201 to June 30, 201, and KRW 265,100,000 (excluding value-added tax).

B. On June 30, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant (Seoul District Court Seosan Branch 2014Gahap200548), and sought compensation for damages by operating a team fitness center with a significantly smaller team than the Defendant explained at the time of the tender and the project presentation. ② Preliminaryly, the Plaintiff asserted that the agreement was revoked on the ground of mistake as it concluded an operation agreement with the Defendant that the Defendant would guarantee the number of team units presented at the time of the tender and the project presentation.

The court of the first instance accepted the plaintiff's conjunctive assertion and rendered a judgment that partly accepted the plaintiff's claim.

1. With respect to the permission of use and benefit (B engine club restaurant and its extension house, the period of permission from July 1, 201 to June 30, 201) concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on or around July 7, 2011, the parties’ claim obligations related to state property should be terminated by the Defendant’s payment of the amount under paragraph (2) to the Plaintiff.

2. The Defendant shall pay 185,000,000 won (excluding value-added tax) to the Plaintiff by June 30, 2016. If the Defendant fails to pay the above amount by the above date, the Defendant shall pay the unpaid amount plus the delay damages calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from July 1, 2016 to the date of full payment.

4. After July 1, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant shall faithfully consult about the extension of the period of permission to use and benefit to the Plaintiff for at least one year and six months.

However, even if the above consultation is omitted, the defendant does not interfere with the plaintiff's act of collecting facility costs and other premiums from new successful bidders.