The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance.

1. The reasoning for this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court is the same as that of the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (from 5 to 6th 3 pages of the judgment of the court of first instance). Thus, this part of the reasoning is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 4

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. In light of the following circumstances, the Defendant’s summary of the Defendant’s assertion: (a) the instant contract constitutes a sub-lease contract concluded between the Defendant and the Plaintiff regarding the instant restaurant as a party to a contract under private law; and (b) the Defendant’s refusal to renew the instant contract on December 22, 2014 ought to be deemed to be an expression of intent made by the Defendant on an equal footing with the Plaintiff; and (c) accordingly, the instant lawsuit

1) The instant restaurant does not have a public property management ledger for the instant restaurant, and the Seoul Special Metropolitan City did not have decided to use the instant restaurant directly for public purposes. The building ledger for the instant restaurant does not include the purpose of use as “tourist resting facilities (parks or facilities annexed to tourist resorts)” but is a “Class 1 neighborhood living facilities,” so the instant restaurant is not an administrative property. Thus, the instant restaurant is a general property, not an administrative property. 2) The Defendant is a local government public corporation established by Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and is a private person, and according to Article 27(2) of the Public Property and Commodity Management Act (hereinafter “Public Property Act”), a person entrusted with the management of administrative property by the public property management authority is deemed to have obtained permission for use and profit-making under Article 20(1) of the Public Property Act. According to Article 20(3) of the Public Property Act, a person who has obtained permission for use and profit-making of administrative property shall not allow another person to use and profit from the instant restaurant.