[손해배상(기)청구사건][하집1990(2),76]
(a) The case holding that a request for submission of a written estimate to a participating company, guidance on bidding, etc. is merely an inducement of simple offer;
B. Whether the other party who reversed the negotiation for the conclusion of the contract is liable for damages to the person who, prior to the conclusion of the contract, has made a disbursement of the expenses.
A. According to tender specifications, a company which makes a tender is required to determine all or part of the details of the tender by means of economic feasibility, corporate technical ability, scope of supply, payment period, quality, etc., and even in such a case, if there is a provision that the bidder cannot raise an objection against the bid, the contract under such a method is established only by the bid of the participating company and the declaration of successful tender of the company conducting the tender, and thus, the request for submission of a written estimate to the participating company or the guidance for the tender date shall be deemed to be merely a mere inducement for the
B. If one of the parties does not suspend negotiations for the conclusion of a contract without reasonable grounds while inducing, promoting, or promoting a legitimate expectation or trust that the contract will be concluded with the other party, it does not constitute a default or tort even if it is reversed by one of the parties, and thus, is not liable to compensate the other party for the loss incurred by the other party who has disbursed the expenses believed that the contract will be concluded.
(a) Article 527, Section 535 of the Civil Act;
[Plaintiff-Appellant] 78Da317 decided Apr. 11, 1978 (Law No. 527(10)846 of the Civil Act, No. 244-392)
Second Electronic Warning Corporation
Korea Heavy Industries Corporation
1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 64,560,100 won with 5% interest per annum from the day following the day on which the copy of the complaint of this case is served to the day on which the judgment of this case is rendered, and 25% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.
The costs of lawsuit shall be assessed against the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution.
1. Determination on the claim for damages due to the cancellation of the contract
On January 12, 1989, the Plaintiff participated in the bidding conducted by the Defendant for the purchase of air cooling equipment 2 E. B. B. B. (K2H) 1 E. B. B. B. (I.T.V, surveillance camera). However, in the third bidding, the Plaintiff participated in the bidding and bid at the lowest price of KRW 163,50,000, and the bid was awarded at KRW 163,500,000, which was the lowest price, but the Defendant and the Defendant entered into the first purchase contract on E. B. T. B., but the Defendant purchased the first formula from the Oran Electronic Co., Ltd. on E., Ltd., and established it to the Non-Party B., and thus, the above purchase contract was impossible to perform. Therefore, the Plaintiff cancelled the above purchase contract with the copy of the complaint of this case and sought compensation for damages incurred by the Defendant’s nonperformance of the above contract.
Therefore, the plaintiff 1 and the defendant 2 were examined as to whether the contract was concluded between the plaintiff 1 and the defendant 0. The plaintiff 1 and the non-party 2's bid price of 0. The plaintiff 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's bid price of 0. The non-party 1 and the non-party 3's 3's 3's 3's 8's 9's 9's 9's 1's 9's 1's 9's 1's 9's 1's 9's 1's 1's 1's 0's 1's 1's 0's 1's 1's 6'''''''''''''''''s 1'''''''''''''s 1'''''s 1''''''''''s 1'''''''''''''6'''''''''''''''''''''2'''''''''''''''''' 1' 1''''''''''''' 1'''.
2. Determination as to a claim for damages due to nonperformance or tort
In light of Gap evidence Nos. 3-1, 2 (Report on Materials Purchase), 3 (Report on Materials Purchase), 4 (Written Examination of Professional Engineer), 5 (Minutes), and 4-1, 3 (Written Examination of Evidence Nos. 4, without dispute over each establishment, the plaintiff's testimony at the witness interest rate of the witness (Provided, That this part is excluded from the witness's testimony which is not believed earlier) was made from the defendant on Dec. 2, 198 as to the witness interest rate of the non-party 3-1, 2 (Report on Materials Purchase), 3 (Report on Materials Purchase of Professional), 4 (Written Examination of Professional Engineer), 5 (Written Examination), and 4 (Written Examination of Evidence), the plaintiff did not request the plaintiff to submit a written estimate to the defendant to purchase the above 1, 4, 1988, and the plaintiff did not request the plaintiff to purchase the above 4, 1, 1989, 2, 3, 4, 1989.
The plaintiff asserts that, inasmuch as the plaintiff requested the plaintiff to participate in the above four biddings, and the plaintiff submitted the quotation and specifications for the above four biddings to the defendant, and consulted several times, the defendant did not notify the plaintiff of the execution date of the above four biddings in advance, and the plaintiff did not deprive the plaintiff of the opportunity to participate in the above four biddings because the plaintiff did not notify the plaintiff of the execution date of the above four biddings, the plaintiff's deprivation of the opportunity to participate in the above four biddings constitutes default of obligation or tort, and thus, the plaintiff sought compensation for damages caused to the plaintiff
Therefore, unless one of the parties to the contract revokes or encourages the other party's legitimate expectation or trust in regard to the conclusion of the contract, or suspends the negotiation of the contract without reasonable grounds, one party to the contract shall be liable for the other party's expectation of the formation of the contract and the expenses incurred by the other party in accordance with the principle of freedom of contract formation even if the other party to the contract revokes the negotiation of the contract, and the other party who believed the formation of the contract shall be liable for the expenses incurred by the other party at his own risk and responsibility. Thus, the plaintiff who was requested to submit a quotation from the defendant and consulted with the defendant as well as the other party to the contract with the other party to the contract at the request of the other party to the contract. Therefore, even if the defendant reversed the contract negotiation by failing to notify the other party of the date of the above four bidding execution, it does not constitute a default or tort. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion based on the premise that the act of destroying the contract negotiation by the defendant is a default or tort
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit, and all of them are dismissed, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing plaintiff and it is so decided as per Disposition.
Judges Park Young-young (Presiding Judge)