1. The part against the defendant regarding the conjunctive claim in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. The above-mentioned part shall be applicable.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the basic facts is that the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that for the corresponding part of the reasoning for the judgment, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence

2. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part is the same as the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. The judgment on the conjunctive claim (the claim for damages caused by the illegal act due to the improper destruction of the contract negotiation)

A. While the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant granted the Plaintiff the trust that the Plaintiff would preferentially purchase materials-combined machinery during the designated period of development selection, the Plaintiff and the Defendant completed price negotiations for concluding a contract for the supply of materials-combined machinery with respect to the 18th period prior to the operation of the Plaintiff and left the final contract only. The Defendant unilaterally reversed the contract negotiations without justifiable grounds.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to compensate for damages, such as additional facility investment costs, incurred by the Plaintiff in believing that the Plaintiff would enter into a contract for the supply of water materials combined with respect to the 18th nuclear power plant in operation.

B. In a case where one party grants a legitimate expectation or trust that a contract will be concluded at the negotiation stage and causes damage 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, such act constitutes an unlawful act exceeding the bounds of the freedom of contract doctrine in light of the principle of trust and good faith.

In addition, the damage caused by such tort is the damage caused by one party who trusted the conclusion of the contract by destroying the contract negotiation without good cause, which is the damage in proximate causal relation to the other party who trusted the conclusion of the contract.