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 grounds for the plaintiff's assertion in the trial of the court of first instance while filing an appeal are not significantly different from the already asserted contents in the trial of the court of first instance. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows 2. The reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment on the plaintiff's assertion to be emphasized as stated in the following 3. Thus, it is identical to the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of

2. Parts in height:

A. On the second and third pages of the judgment of the court of first instance, “in accordance with Article 21 of the instant concession agreement” shall be deleted.

B. On April 15, 2014, the first instance court's decision No. 9 was 7, "Appeal (Seoul High Court 2013Na2006870, but dismissed on April 15, 2014)" (Seoul High Court 2013Na2006870, but was sentenced to the dismissal of appeal on April 15, 2014, and the Plaintiff appealed as Supreme Court Decision 2014Da209432, but the dismissal of appeal became final and conclusive after being sentenced to the dismissal of appeal on July 10, 2014."

C. On the 9th 13th 13th 13th 10th 13th 13th 13th 2013Nu25728, “At the present appellate court (Seoul High Court 2013Nu25728), the Plaintiff appealed as Seoul High Court 2013Nu25728, but was sentenced to the dismissal of appeal on November 18, 2014, and the Plaintiff appealed as Supreme Court 2014Du14891 and is currently pending in the final appeal

3. Judgment on the assertion that the plaintiff emphasizes

A. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion on illegality of the instant disposition 1) Although the Defendant, as a party to the instant concession agreement, guaranteed the Plaintiff’s exclusive status, the Defendant did not take business suspension measures against the Plaintiff, and provided a critical cause to lower the Plaintiff’s profit by granting permission to change the use of the snow driving range on the ground of A golf driving range, which constitutes a breach of the duty of good faith in performing the contract, and thus constitutes the Defendant’s fault. 2)