The case recognizing liability for negligence in concluding a contract due to breach of duty under the good faith principle at the preparation stage for the conclusion of the contract.

A Company A established a construction plan and notified the fishery right holders of the place of the operation and the agreement on compensation in the construction area; Company B et al. did not spread the type of the operation and then did not unilaterally reduce or adjust the construction scale and exclude the fishery right of Company B et al. from the object of compensation, Company B et al. violated the duty of the good faith that should be included in the construction area of Company B et al. and cooperate in the payment of compensation for the termination of fishery right. In this case, Company B et al. believed that their fishery right would be the object of compensation, thus resulting in the failure to spread the type of the operation and resulting in the failure to produce the skin for its preparation. In other words, Company B et al. is liable to compensate for the trust interest.

Articles 535 and 390 of the Civil Act

Park Hyun-ok et al. and two others

Korea Electric Power Corporation

1. The plaintiffs' primary claims are dismissed.

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff Park Jong-ok an amount of KRW 52,902,00, KRW 26,451,00 per annum from June 21, 1993 to October 21, 1993, and an amount of KRW 25 percent per annum from October 22, 1993 to the date of full payment.

3. The plaintiffs' remaining conjunctive claims are dismissed.

4. The costs of the lawsuit are five-minutes, one of which is the defendant, and the other are the defendant, respectively.

5. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

The primary purport of the claim: The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff Park Jong-ok an amount of KRW 464,160,000, KRW 232,080,000 per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment with the amount of KRW 25% per annum with respect to each of the above amounts.

Preliminary purport of claim: The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff Park Jong-ok an amount of 139,464,50 won, the interest rate of 69,732,250 won, each of which shall be 25 percent per annum from June 21, 1993 to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

The following facts can be acknowledged in light of the Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 3, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11-1, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19-2, 15, 19, and 12 of the evidence 1-1, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, and 1,2 of the evidence 1-2, 3, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 111-1, 12 of the evidence 1-2, 15, 19, 1

A. On the fishery right (license number No. 2894) of the spraying culture plant located on the cream line located on the cipho-ri branch line, 1/2 equity right holder, the plaintiff Lee Jong-ok, the plaintiff Lee Jong-tae, and the plaintiff cipantship are one-fourth equity right holder, respectively.

B. On September 19, 1989, the Korea Electric Power Corporation (hereinafter “Defendant Corporation”) established a construction plan for breakwaters and 3 and 4 companies constructed in relation to Samcheon Power Plants; and notified the Plaintiffs that the above construction plan was located in the above construction area of the Defendant Corporation and directly damaged by the above cultivation site, which is owned by the Plaintiffs, shall be subject to compensation.

C. Accordingly, on March 16, 1990, the plaintiffs attended the High-gun Compensation Deliberation Committee convened in relation to the construction of the above Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 on the part of the defendant Corporation and the non-party High-gun, and asked about whether the above fishery right is subject to compensation for closure due to the construction of the above Chapter 4 company at the location of the defendant Corporation's representative present at the above committee, and that around that time, the plaintiffs should spread the above 4 company 4 company 4 company 4 company 4 company 4 company 4 company , and the above location director asked whether the above 4 company 4 company 4 company 4 company 4 company 4 company 4 company 4 company 4 company 4 company 4 company 4 company 4 company 1 company 1 company 1 company 1 company 1 company 1 company 20 company 1 company 20 company 1 company 20 company 1 company 20 company 20 company 20 company 200 company 200 company 200

D. Therefore, the plaintiffs believed that the above model of the plaintiffs would be included in the 4th Company Construction Zone, and did not spread the sprink in the above model from March 1990, while paying compensation for the extinguishment of their fishery rights.

E. After that, on January 29, 191, the head of Seongbuk-si publicly announced the implementation plan for the Samcheon Power Plant and the 4th Company Construction Project, which included a compensation plan for the plaintiffs' above fishery rights under the Fisheries Act.

F. On February 191, 191, the non-party Jong-do, the chairman of the compensation promotion committee, agreed on behalf of the plaintiffs to request services to the Busan Fisheries University Marine Science Research Institute with respect to compensation for the extinguishment of the above fishery right.

G. After that, on November 30, 1991, the Busan Institute of Marine Science prepared an interim report on the above compensation and notified the contents thereof to the plaintiffs. On April 1992, it was revealed that the final fishery damage report was prepared and the amount of compensation due to the termination of the plaintiffs' fishery right reaches KRW 2,152,626,000.

H. Accordingly, on July 10, 1992, the Plaintiffs requested the Defendant Corporation to pay compensation upon the termination of the above fishery right.

I. However, on August 20, 192, the defendant Corporation made a reply to the effect that the above fishery right was excluded from the object of compensation because the plaintiffs' cultivation was not directly included in the damaged area, due to the establishment of the comprehensive plan for coal re-processing for the purpose of efficient utilization of resources. On September 3, 1992, the defendant Corporation reported that the above plaintiffs' fishery right was excluded from the object of compensation due to the reduction or alteration of the above plaintiffs' fishery right to the Do governor and the Do-nam Gun-gun Gun-do Gun Gun-do.

2. Judgment as to the main claim

The plaintiffs agreed not only to compensate for the extinction of fishery rights at the time of the agreement under Paragraph (1) but also to compensate for damages incurred by the plaintiffs due to their failure to spread of their failure in the compensation zone. The plaintiffs asserted that the above research institute agreed to pay compensation for suspension of work for the total amount of 309,440,000 won, which is the annual amount of damages calculated by the above research institute, for three years.

Therefore, if the plaintiffs were to be excluded from the compensation zone of the plaintiffs' form at the time of concluding the above compensation agreement with the defendant corporation, it is hard to believe that Gap's evidence No. 17 and witness allocation officers' partial testimony of Gap's evidence No. 16, and witness allocation officers' testimony of Gap's evidence No. 17 are hard to believe and there is no other evidence to prove that the defendant corporation agreed to pay the amount according to the result of the above research institute's calculation as compensation for the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the plaintiffs' failure to spread the spawn for that period. Rather, in full view of Gap's evidence No. 5, Gap evidence No. 16, and evidence No. 18 and witness allocation officers' partial testimony, the plaintiffs were excluded from the construction zone at the time of entering into the above agreement with the defendant corporation and the above fishery right was entirely not expected to be excluded from the compensation zone, and therefore, the plaintiffs and the defendant corporation agreed to compensate for the damages due to the extinguishment of the fishery right on the premise that the above cultivation was included in the above construction zone.

Therefore, the above agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendant Corporation on compensation for suspension of work is agreed to pay compensation on the premise that the above cultivation forms of the plaintiffs are combined with the construction area and the fishery right is extinguished. Thus, it cannot be applied to this case excluded from the construction area. Thus, the plaintiffs' primary claim is without merit.

3. Judgment on the conjunctive claim

A. As seen in paragraphs (a) through (f) above, if the defendant Corporation established a breakwater and 3 and 4 company construction plan constructed in relation to the Samcheon Power Plant and notified the plaintiffs, prepared land and obstacles records, and notified the plaintiffs that the above model belongs to the construction area of the defendant Corporation, and notified the plaintiffs that they would be eligible for compensation, and then publicly notified the plaintiffs' fishery rights to the compensation plan, and entered into the compensation agreement with the plaintiffs to the extent that the above model would not be included in the 4 company construction area. Accordingly, if the plaintiffs believed that the above model was included in the 4 company construction area and did not spread the above model, from March 3, 1990, that the above model was believed to be included in the 4 company construction area and the above model was not included in the 4 company construction area, it should be excluded from the plaintiffs' obligations under the principle of good faith, and thus, the Corporation unilaterally excluded the plaintiffs from the above construction area due to the decrease in the size of the plaintiffs' obligations.

B. On this basis, the defendant Corporation stated that the defendant Corporation's negligence should be taken into account because it did not seek an official opinion from the above Director, in addition to the above individual opinion, again sought from the above Director's individual opinion, and it did not spread the above fishery right because the defendant Corporation's 4 company head, who attended the above Gosung-gun Compensation Deliberation Committee as the representative of the defendant Corporation, continued to work for the above Gosung-gun Compensation Deliberation Committee for the defendant Corporation. However, since the defendant Corporation stated that "the above 4 company head started work for the above 4 company head," the above 4 company head should not spread the above 4 company head's 4 company head, the defendant corporation's above 4 company head's 4 company head's 'the above 4 company head' belongs to the above construction zone of the defendant Corporation, and the above 4 company head's 4 company head should not receive compensation from the defendant Corporation's 5 company head's above 4 company head's 4 company head's above 4 company head's 4 company head's compensation plan.

C. Furthermore, according to the scope of the amount of damages that Defendant Corporation is liable for, the scope of the damages that Defendant Corporation should compensate is the damage that Defendant Corporation suffered due to the failure of the Plaintiffs to spread the crupt and the failure to produce the crush from around April 1990 to August 20, 192, which was the time when the said crush was prohibited by the Chief of the Location of Defendant Corporation from spreading the crush and notified the Plaintiffs by preparing the land and obstacles protocol, and the Defendant Corporation responded to the effect that the above crush was excluded from compensation. In light of the overall purport of the arguments, the amount of damages is KRW 105,804,00,00 in calculating the amount of damages as follows, considering the result of the appraiser's most recent appraisal as follows.

(1) An opening of the skin farming industry: In ordinary cases, the head of the vessel shall, from April to June of each year, gather the spaw in October and November of the following year and then spread the spaw from April to June of the following year.

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the failure to spread the steering gear was the sum of the net profit that the plaintiffs would have been able to recover from the steering gear that could have been recovered from around October 1991, and the net profit from the steering gear that could have been recovered from around April 1993 (the spraying around April 1992) that could have been recovered from around October 199, and that the damages suffered from the plaintiffs due to the failure to spread the steering gear that could have been recovered from around October 1991.

(2) Estimated gross income: If calculated based on the estimated output and estimated unit price as follows, the estimated gross income from October 1991 shall be KRW 175,218,00,000, and the estimated gross income from October 1993 shall be KRW 163,103,00.

(A) Estimated output: When taking into account various statistical data and the results of the search and investigation of neighboring victims, the estimated output of October 1991 is gold 18.75t and the estimated output of October 1993 around 12.5t.

(B) Estimated unit price: (a) Considering the results of the investigation by the fisheries cooperatives and related agencies and farmers, the ratio of 100 tons of scamblings to be produced mainly in the Gosung-gun, where the plaintiffs' aquaculture is located, and the ratio of 10% of scamblings to be used in the production of scamblings, and about 5% of scamblings to be used in the production of scamblings, and about 10,000 won around October 1991 in the case of scamblings; (b) gold 14,000 won around October 193 in the case of scamblings; (c) gold 4,200 won around October 1991 in the case of scamblings; and (d) gold 4,966 won around October 193 in the case of scamblings.

(C) Estimated gross income

* Francison October 1991

18,750km 】 (10,000 x 0.9 + 200 x 0.5 + 2,700 x 0.5) = gold 175,218,00 won

* Franchi, 1993

12,500km (14,00 x 0.9 4,966 x 0.5 +4,000 x 0.5) = gold 163,103,00 won

(3) Estimated total cost: (a) the estimated total cost will be KRW 106,856,00,000, the estimated total cost will be KRW 95,769,000, in consideration of the statistical data compiled by the Materne Cooperatives and the Materne-gun and the results of the investigation by nearby farmers and related agencies, as follows: (b) the estimated cost will be KRW 106,856,00,00, in total cost around October 1993; and (c) the estimated total cost

(A) The resource creation cost for production around October 1991 is KRW 71,354,00, KRW 57,083,00, and KRW 57,000,00 for resource creation cost for production around October 1993.

(b)Maintenance and management costs and gathering costs: 35,502,000 for production around October 1991; 38,686,00 for production around October 193; and 38,686,00 for production around October 1993.

(C) Total amount: KRW 106,856,00 for production around October 1991, and KRW 95,769,00 for production around October 193; and KRW 95,769,00 for production around October 1993.

(4) Estimated net profit: 105,804,00 won shall be calculated as follows:

(A) Net profit at the time of collection: 68,362,00 won for net profit (175,218,000 won-106,856,000 won) around October 1993; 67,334,000 won for net profit around October 1993 (163,103,00 won -95,769,000 won); and 33,67,000 won for net profit around October 1993 (67,34,000 won) if 1/2 of net profit was calculated on or around October 1993 as described in the above (1).

(B) Estimated net profit at the time of the pricing point (as of October 10, 1992, the appraisal point at the above appraisal point, applying 10% per annum, which is the interest rate for term deposits in commercial banks)

* Amount for minor production on October 1991: 68,362,00 won 】 (1+0.1) = gold 75,198,00 won

* 3,667,00 won ± (1+0.1) = gold 30,606,00 won

(c) Determination of net profit: 105,804,00 won (75,198,000 won +30,606,000 won)

(1) The Plaintiff and the Defendant Corporation agreed to appraise the amount of compensation for loss of the above fishery right by agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Corporation, and the amount of annual revenue of the above fishery right is expected to be the future loss based on the Plaintiffs’ past records. Thus, it is not appropriate for the Plaintiffs to calculate the amount of loss actually incurred during the above period. Moreover, the appraiser’s appraisal result is contradictory, such as that the annual revenue of the above fishery right exceeds the price of the fishery right itself. Therefore, the amount of loss is calculated according to the result of the appraiser’s most recent appraisal).

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant corporation is liable to pay to the plaintiff Park Jong-ok 52,902,00 won (105,804,000 won x 1/2) according to the plaintiffs' shares in relation to the above fishery right as compensation for the trust interest arising from the fault liability under the contract conclusion, and after the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case with respect to each of the above amounts, 26,451,00 won (105,804,000 won x 1/4) to the plaintiff Lee Jong-ok, and the plaintiff Postal Co., Ltd., the following day after the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case with respect to each of the above amounts, the five percent per annum under the Civil Act from June 21, 1993 to October 21, 1993, the next day from October 22, 1993 to the date of the decision of this case.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' primary claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. Since the plaintiffs' primary claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, it is accepted and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Choi Han-dae (Presiding Judge)