The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Examining the first ground for appeal in light of the record, the court below is just in holding that it is difficult to deem the consulting contract between the original defendant to have been concluded on the grounds of its stated reasoning, and there is no violation of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

2. Examining the second ground for appeal in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the court below is just in holding that it is difficult to view that the Defendant granted a legitimate expectation or trust that a consulting contract would be concluded in a certain manner as alleged in the Plaintiff at the negotiation stage, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation

3. As to the third ground for appeal, this part of the ground for appeal is merely an error in the selection of evidence or fact-finding which belongs to the exclusive jurisdiction of the lower court, which is a fact-finding court, and it cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal. Furthermore, even if examining the judgment of the lower court in light of the records, it did not err by exceeding the bounds

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.