1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of the instant case is that of the first instance court’s decision, except for the addition of the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion in the first instance court under Paragraph 2 below, and thus, this is based on Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. Defendant’s assertion 1) Among the instant business facilities, the location change of a hotel, etc. causes significant changes in project costs, construction costs, and other project implementation conditions, and design drawings are included in the contents of the instant concession agreement as appendix to the instant concession agreement, and thus, the concession agreement must be amended for the purpose of modification of design documents, including a change in the location of the hotel. In addition, “the result of the agreement between the parties to the agreement” under Article 18(2) and (3) of the instant concession agreement refers to the contents of the instant concession agreement, and it does not mean any other separate agreement. Therefore, insofar as the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was not concluded, the Plaintiff shall file an application for approval on the premise of the establishment of a hotel in the school environmental sanitation and cleanup zone pursuant to the existing concession agreement, and the Plaintiff’s responsibility must undergo deliberation by the School Environmental Sanitation and Cleanup Committee for the establishment of a hotel, and it is not impossible to obtain such deliberation. 2) Consultations between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on January 19, 2016 cannot be deemed a separate agreement among the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

The defendant's negotiating group is operated for the purpose of consultation and there is no final agreement authority.

The content of the meeting minutes of the negotiating group on January 19, 2016 is an independent and complete agreement in light of the purpose of the text of the meeting minutes and the possibility of modification in the process of administrative procedures, such as deliberation or consent, etc.

The results of the agreement on January 19, 2016, which was merely an intermediate consultation, are as long as the agreement between the original defendant was finally displayed.