1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 31, 2006, the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant a project proposal to create a man-made City tourist destination with a private investment project in the amount of KRW 240 in the north-ri 240, North Korea-do.

After reviewing the feasibility of the project, the Defendant publicly announced the contents of the proposal for the creation of a private investment project for the Daotoma Tourist (hereinafter “instant project”) on May 18, 2007, and on August 27, 2007, the Plaintiff was designated as a priority negotiation subject.

B. On December 30, 2008, the Defendant entered into a concession agreement on the instant project with an auxiliary intervenor (tentative name), Gatomate Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant concession agreement”) and the Intervenor was duly established on June 12, 2009. The supplementary intervenor was duly established on June 12, 2009. The supplementary intervenor’s shareholder is comprised of a financial investor (53.7%), Tae Young Construction Co., Ltd. (22%) and Macoco Co., Ltd. (11.67%) and the Plaintiff (7.41%) who is a strategic investor.

C. On December 9, 2010, the Defendant approved and publicly notified the instant project implementation plan under Article 2010-101 of the Notice of Jeju-gun.

Around December 2012, the Intervenor filed a request with the Defendant to approve the change of “the person who entered into a delegation or entrustment contract with respect to the operation of the instant project” to human resources management company. However, on February 26, 2013, the Defendant rejected the request on the ground that “the supplementary intervenor was selected by the Plaintiff, who is the operating investing company, pursuant to Article 43 of the concession agreement of this case, because it is deemed appropriate for the instant operating company to modify the request, the supplementary intervenor would meet the requirements under Article 43(2) of the concession agreement of this case and apply for approval.”

E. The Defendant failed to conclude a delegation and consignment agreement with the operating company until May 2013, when the supplementary intervenor completed the construction of the instant business facilities, and designated the Plaintiff as a temporary operator on July 18, 2013.