1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance regarding the claim for confirmation of illegality of omission is revoked.

Of the instant lawsuit, a claim for confirmation of illegality of omission is filed.

Details of the disposition

On July 3, 2015, the Plaintiff obtained permission to use a container on each of the above land for the purpose of storage (from July 15, 2015 to July 14, 20202) with respect to 740 square meters and 390 square meters among 9,784 square meters of land for the railway in Bupyeong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Incheon, which is a State-owned property managed by the Defendant, as an entrusted-type quasi-governmental institution under Article 5(3)2 (b) of the Act on the Management of Public Institutions, and operated warehouse business by installing containers on each of the above land for the purpose of storage.

However, although F obtained permission from the Defendant to use a 600 square meter out of 9,784 square meters of the Incheon Bupyeong-gu Seoul Railway site for parking lot, it installed and used a container warehouse without the Defendant’s approval. As the Plaintiff filed a civil petition, the Defendant took corrective measures against F, but F did not comply with such permission.

On August 25, 2015, the Defendant notified F of F to F to the effect that the permission for use of state property was revoked due to the violation of Article 36 of the State Property Act and the conditions for permission for use of state property, and that F did not implement measures for reinstatement. On November 27, 2015, the Defendant returned the permission for use to the Defendant for business difficulties due to F’s illegal container storage business.

On December 2, 2015, the Defendant issued a public announcement of tender for the selection of users of State-owned property relating to 1,211 square meters (hereinafter “instant public announcement”) among the 2,685 square meters in Bupyeong-gu, Incheon and D railway sites (hereinafter “instant land”). On December 24, 2015, B was the highest bidder as the highest bidder in bidding (hereinafter “instant bid”), and the Plaintiff was the second highest bidder as the second highest bidder.

Accordingly, the defendant notified B of the purport that B would permit the use of the land of this case on the ground that B was determined as a successful bidder.

(hereinafter “instant permission disposition”).