The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, this part of the ground of appeal alleged in the ground of appeal is without merit, and it does not constitute a legitimate ground of appeal, as it alleged in the ground of appeal No. 1.

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, Article 9(1) and (4) of the former Industrial Cluster Development and Factory Establishment Act (amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter “former Industrial Cluster Act”), Article 32(1) and (4) of the Industrial Complex Management Guidelines pursuant to delegation under Article 32(1) of the former Industrial Cluster Development and Factory Establishment Act (amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter “former Industrial Cluster Act”) provides that where an industrial complex management agency sells land in a complex, it shall enter into an occupancy agreement including matters concerning selling price, payment method, termination of occupancy contract, etc., and where an occupant

In addition, according to the former Industrial Cluster Act, occupant enterprises cannot freely dispose of industrial sites, factories, etc. in an industrial complex, and if industrial sites, etc. are disposed of in violation of this Act, it becomes the ground for termination of the occupancy contract (Articles 39, 39-2, 42(1)6 and 7), where a person who acquired an industrial site, etc. fails to conclude the occupancy contract within a given period, or where the occupancy contract is terminated due to a certain reason, such industrial

In light of the language and purport of the provisions of the former Industrial Cluster Act and the relationship between the acquisition of industrial sites and the occupancy contract, etc., an industrial complex management agency may terminate the occupancy contract through the procedures prescribed in the Industrial Cluster Act if the occupant enterprise fails to perform the duty to pay the sale price prescribed in the occupancy contract.

The lower court, comprehensively taking account of its adopted evidence, shall be the Plaintiff.