1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The court's explanation concerning this case is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the supplement of judgment as set forth in the following paragraph (2). Thus, the court's explanation as to this case is acceptable by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
(However, among the grounds of the judgment of the first instance, the 8th court below's "H" as "I," and the 7th court's "small and Medium Enterprise" as "B" as "I," and the 2th court's judgment as "B."
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion in this court is not significantly different from that in the first instance trial.
In other words, around October 31, 2007, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a letter of intent to obtain a loan of approximately KRW 130 billion (PF) with respect to the instant business (Evidence A 1; hereinafter “the instant letter of intent to obtain a loan”). Around December 18, 2007, the Industrial Bank extended a loan of KRW 9.5 billion to the Plaintiff for a limited period of time prior to the Defendant’s execution of a loan of KRW 130 billion to the Industrial Bank of Korea.
In addition, the Defendant granted a legitimate expectation or trust that a loan agreement of KRW 130 billion will be concluded to the Plaintiff by negotiating the status of progress of the instant project between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff for a year.
Nevertheless, the defendant should compensate the plaintiff for damages because he committed a tort to withdraw the above loan commitment without reasonable grounds.
B. Therefore, we look at.
As asserted by the Plaintiff, the Defendant’s operation of D Company C around October 31, 2007 is reduced by the first instance court as a drug of D Company operated by C.
In relation to the instant business, a letter of intent to provide the instant financing, containing the purport that approximately KRW 130 billion loans are to be executed, shall be sent, and the fact that the Industrial Bank of Korea, around December 18, 2007, intended to loan KRW 9.5 billion to the Plaintiff is recognized by the first instance court.
In addition, evidence Nos. 38 to 42, and 45 are included.