The part of the lawsuit claiming the payment of unpaid user fees, etc. in the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

1. The facts below the facts are either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 14 and Eul evidence No. 1.

The real estate listed in the attached list 1 (hereinafter referred to as "the welfare center of this case") is the plaintiff's state property (owned property) and is located in the territory of the BB headquarters, which is a subordinate unit of the air force under the Ministry of National Defense, and the B Commander is the management officer.

B. Around November 2014, the Plaintiff’s permission to use State-owned property to the Defendant (1) was publicly announced through a competitive bid (Internet bid) for the “permission to use State-owned property (building/private business)” with regard to “106.07 square meters inside the instant welfare center (hereinafter “instant coffee store”) connected with each of the items listed in Appendix 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 among the instant welfare center in sequence under the name of the head of the ordinary facility head of the Defense Facility Headquarters, which is “100 square meters inside the instant facility” (hereinafter “instant coffee store”). As a result, the Defendant was awarded a successful bid.

(2) On December 22, 2014, the head of the National Defense Facility Headquarters, based on Article 30 (Permission for Use) of the State Property Act and Article 27 (Method of Permission for Use) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, based on the purpose of use of the instant coffee store to the Plaintiff, the head of the National Defense Facility Headquarters started business with the trade name “C” upon delivery of the instant coffee store, and the term of use “from December 18, 2014 to December 19, 2017 (three years)” and “from December 18, 2014 to December 19, 2017 (including additional tax)” and “the use fee was 32,510,000 won per annum” (hereinafter the same shall apply). (3) On December 22, 2014, the Defendant began business with the terms and conditions of permission granted to the Plaintiff under Article 14 of the State Property Act as “C” in parallel with the new Operating Rules of the State Property Convention.