1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The issues of this case and the judgment of the court of first instance

A. The key issue of the instant case was that the Defendant, on May 27, 2014, requested the Defendant to renew the period of permission between two years (2,028.53 square meters of underground buildings and 2,240.54 square meters of land (hereinafter “instant public property”) located in Busan-gu, Busan-gu, a public property (administrative property) from the Defendant, for use and profit-making for three years from July 1, 201 to June 30, 201, and for use and profit-making under the trade name “D” from July 1, 2011 to “D”; and on May 27, 2014, prior to the expiration of the period of permission for use and profit-making of the said three-year public property (hereinafter “instant public property”). The Defendant, on the ground that the pertinent public property was not directly used from the expiration of the period of permission for use and profit-making (hereinafter “the instant public property”).

The key issue of this case is whether the disposition of this case is unlawful by violating the principle of trust protection, or by abusing or abusing discretion.

B. First of all, the court of first instance determined that the disposition in this case cannot be deemed to be in violation of the principle of trust protection on the ground that it is difficult to recognize that there was a defendant's public opinion expression that grants renewal of the existing permission period when the existing permission period expires.

Next, the court of first instance seems to use the public property of this case forming part of the cultural center as cultural education place for performing exhibition halls or citizens according to the original purpose of the cultural center rather than the wedding facilities operated by private persons. It seems that it conforms to the legislative intent of Article 3-2 of the former Public Property Act. ② In particular, at the time of granting permission to the plaintiff for the use and profit-making of the public property of this case, the defendant clearly stated the period of permission for three years, and further, the above period of permission.