The defendant school juristic person has a C University (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant") under its control without distinguishing between the defendant and C University.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute and purport of the whole pleading

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion argues that the Defendant is liable to compensate for damages suffered by the Defendant, since the Plaintiff refused to employ himself/herself as an instructor on the grounds that he/she could not be able to understand, even though the Defendant granted a legitimate expectation and trust that he/she would employ himself/herself as an English instructor during negotiations for the conclusion of employment contracts.

B. 1) In a case where either party grants a legitimate expectation or trust that a contract will be concluded in a certain negotiation stage, and the other party refuses to conclude a contract without reasonable grounds despite acting in accordance with such trust, it constitutes an unlawful act that goes beyond the bounds of the freedom of contract doctrine and constitutes a tort in light of the principle of good faith (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da32301, May 28, 2004).

In full view of the statements in Gap evidence 1 through 8 (including those with a serial number) and witness D's testimony, the following facts may be recognized:

① The Plaintiff, as an English instructor of the Defendant, was supported by submitting a letter of support and a resume in e-mail by hearing the Defendant’s words that the Defendant would employ an English instructor.

② The Defendant’s employee F (hereinafter “F”) is the Plaintiff on December 15, 2014.