1. To dismiss the instant lawsuit that has been changed in exchange at the trial;

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

1. The reasoning for this part of the underlying facts is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. On March 19, 2012, the Plaintiff’s assertion was first designated as a potential concessionaire of the instant project on November 29, 201, and entered into the instant concession agreement with the Armed Forces Mandatory Headquarters (hereinafter “B concession agreement”). During that process, the “Act on National Defense and Military Installations Projects” under the National Defense Facilities Projects Act was reduced.

Selection and consultation under Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree shall be conducted.

In addition, on June 20, 2013 and July 19, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a funeral home donation contract with the National Defense Facility Headquarters to continue the business by the existing donation donation method.

On July 19, 2013, the plaintiff entered into an operation agreement with the National Defense Organization Headquarters. The plaintiff's assertion that the operation agreement was entered into with the National Defense Organization Headquarters is erroneous, but the plaintiff's assertion is stated as it is.

Therefore, there was no authority to conclude agreements with the National Armed Forces Commander at the time of conclusion of the instant concession agreement.

As long as the plaintiff has concluded a funeral home donation contract with the National Defense Facility Headquarters, he/she has the right to apply for the designation of the implementer of national defense and military installations projects.

Therefore, the defendant's rejection disposition against the plaintiff's application for designation of the national defense and military installations project operator is illegal.

B. 1) First, as to whether the Plaintiff’s application for designation as the owner of the national defense and military installations project and the Defendant’s refusal disposition were made, the health room, Gap evidence Nos. 14 and 15 (each statement contained in each number alone, and the Plaintiff filed an application against the Defendant for designation as the implementer of the national defense and military installations project, and the Defendant rejected the above application for designation around October 15 and January 13, 2015.