1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

The plaintiff should have confirmed the existence of a bidder through competitive bidding in order to grant permission for the use of the land of this case to B. However, since the defendant neglected such procedures and issued the above disposition, it is alleged to be unlawful. Accordingly, the defendant concluded a loan agreement with B on the land of this case and did not make a disposition subject to administrative litigation. Thus, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful on the ground that the lawsuit of this case is not subject to the qualification of revocation lawsuit.

The term "administrative disposition" means the exercise or refusal of public authority as an enforcement of law with regard to a specific fact by an administrative agency, and other corresponding administrative actions. The lending of state-owned miscellaneous property by the State under the State Property Act, etc. to a private economic entity is a contract under private law with the other party and an administrative disposition unilaterally conducted regardless of the other party's intent as the subject of public authority.

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Da61675 delivered on February 11, 2000, etc.). Therefore, since the instant lawsuit is inappropriate as it has no eligibility to be subject, the Defendant’s prior defense on the merits is with merit.

Therefore, we decide to dismiss the lawsuit of this case and decide as per Disposition.