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 reasons for the court’s explanation concerning this case are as follows: (a) the pertinent part of the judgment of the first instance is dismissed or added as set forth in paragraph (2) below; and (b) the Plaintiff’s explanation is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the addition of the judgment on the assertion newly made at the trial; and (c) therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. The actual substance of the portion which was removed or added is that “Nebibibibibibibibibibibibiation” of No. 4.

According to the first list of the 6th page, the actual substance of the tax treaty is that the “illegal (end manager)” as “illegal (end manager) with respect to 265 square meters,” and the “4,65,000” as “4,165,000” in the second attached Table 3 is considered as “4,165,000.

The actual accounts are as follows: (a) under the 8th table, the Defendant’s “Defendant” as “Plaintiff”; and (b) the Defendant’s in-house director on February 13, 2013 as “the Plaintiff’s in-house director on February 12, 2013” respectively.

The actual accounts of the Plaintiff set forth in the 10th page 11 are as follows: “The Defendant shall be deemed to have “the Defendant,” and “ June 25, 2012,” respectively, shall be deemed to have “ June 5, 2012.”

The actual substance of the 11th page 13 is that “Notwithstanding the removal of the rebuilding part of the building site,” the rebuilding part of the building site was removed.”

The actual contents of the tax are as follows, Forms 11, 16, and 12, respectively.

In full view of the evidence No. 2, evidence No. 5-1, evidence No. 5-2, evidence No. 11, evidence No. 26 and No. 29, as well as the overall purport of the pleadings, the Plaintiff, at the time of entering into a loan agreement with respect to the instant site, was a good manager at the time of entering into a loan agreement, to bear all the responsibility to preserve and use the leased property as well as all the burden necessary for use and profit-making. The Plaintiff entered into a management agreement with the J of the Korea Green Experience and Tourism Promotion Agency on April 201 with respect to providing the instant site and its ground buildings and equipment, and the J thereafter entered into the land part to be used at the horse-riding site.