1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's additional selective claims in the appellate court are all dismissed.

3...

1. The reasons for the court’s explanation of this case are as follows, except for the addition of the following judgments with respect to the claims selected by the plaintiff in the appellate court, and therefore, the court’s explanation of this case is acceptable by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. In addition to the Plaintiff’s assertion, three team teams belonging to the Defendant Company arranged for the Plaintiff’s employment, and the Plaintiff submitted D’s recommendation demanded to the Plaintiff by the head of the Defendant Company C on May 16, 2014 to the Defendant Company, and the Plaintiff was a legitimate expectation that the employment contract would be concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Company, but the Defendant Company committed a tort refusing to conclude an employment contract with the Plaintiff without reasonable grounds.

Therefore, the defendant company is responsible for employing the plaintiff and compensating the plaintiff for damages caused by the defendant company's tort.

B. In a case where either party grants a legitimate expectation or trust that a contract will be concluded clearly at the negotiation stage, thereby causing losses to the other party by refusing to conclude a contract without reasonable grounds even though the other party acted in accordance with his/her trust, this constitutes an unlawful act beyond the bounds of the freedom of contract doctrine in light of the principle of good faith (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da32301, May 28, 2004); however, the entries of the evidence Nos. 1 through 17 (including each number), alone, are insufficient to recognize that the defendant company granted a legitimate expectation or trust that the employment contract would be concluded clearly, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that this part of the plaintiff's selective claim on a different premise, even if not examining the remainder of the plaintiff's selective claim on the different premise, is not reasonable.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's request for employment of this case and non-compliance with the employment agreement, which is premised on the employment agreement.