1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company established on January 14, 2004 for the purpose of the food beverage sales business, etc., and the Defendant is the managing authority of the theater B, which is State property (hereinafter “the theater of this case”).

B. On December 16, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for permission to use part of the instant theater as lerancs. On May 18, 2017, the Defendant, on the grounds that the period of permission to use was from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017, granted the Plaintiff permission to use part of the instant theater (land 763.56 square meters, building 763.56 square meters) among the instant theater.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant use permit” and the part for which the Plaintiff obtained the use permit (hereinafter referred to as the “instant Lestop”). (C)

On December 13, 2017, the Defendant issued a notice to the Plaintiff that “The date of revocation is December 15, 2017, based on the date of revocation pursuant to Article 36(1)4, etc. of the State Property Act on the grounds that the use of State property of this case was unpaid,” and that “the permission for use of State property of this case is revoked.”

(Notice of Revocation of the above Permission for Use (hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). / [Ground of Recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 2 and 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Although the Plaintiff’s assertion failed to pay the usage fee for the year 2017, the instant disposition was unlawful in the following respect:

1) The Plaintiff donated some buildings and sites of the instant Lestop, and following such donation, the period of permission for use from the Defendant was 30 years in around 2002. (2) When the Plaintiff was unable to operate the instant Lestop because of a cause attributable to the Defendant around 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed on February 5, 2014 to extend the period of permission for use corresponding to the period of time during which the Defendant could not operate the Lestop as above, and thus, the Plaintiff paid the usage fee for the year 2017.