1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation engaged in the housing rental business, and the Defendant is a public corporation that is in charge of the construction, operation, and management of water resources facilities, and has concluded a memorandum of understanding for concluding a real estate sales contract with the Plaintiff.

B. Around January 2017, the Defendant, through a real estate referral office owned by the Plaintiff through a transaction company’s real estate establishment as a building for purchasing the head office building, has reduced the intent to purchase the land and building owned by the Plaintiff, Daegu Dong-dong-dong 351-1.

C. On March 27, 2017, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted a memorandum of understanding (hereinafter “instant memorandum of understanding”) and the gist of the content is as follows.

The time limit for the preparation of a formal contract: The estimated sale price within two months from the date of conclusion of the formal contract: Before the date of conclusion of the formal contract: The name limit for the 5th floor tenant after consultation between the date of conclusion of the formal contract: the name limit for the 5th floor tenant: the maintenance of the official room for the 1, 2, and 3th floor, and the fourth floor tenant shall be the buyer within two months from the date of conclusion of the formal contract: if the formal contract is not completed and the formal contract is not completed, the responsibility shall not be followed for both companies.

Since June 2017, the Defendant issued a notice to the Plaintiff that the purchase price would be reduced to approximately KRW 200 million, which was accepted by the Plaintiff, but the Defendant’s person responsible for the management of the headquarters did not conclude a contract by rejecting the contract at the meeting of the board of directors, following negative opinions at the audit of the headquarters.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 2-2, 6-1 and 6-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff believed that the defendant's assertion that the contract was approved from the defendant's president to the president and refused the existing lease contract in accordance with the letter of understanding of this case. The plaintiff performed the request for delivery to the five-story lessee, and the loan also was extended for a short period of three months in accordance with the conclusion of this contract. Under this circumstance, the defendant unilaterally without explaining reasonable reasons.