1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Basic Facts

The court's explanation on this part is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing this part in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Plaintiff

In the process of concluding the instant contract, the Defendant refused to conclude the contract without reasonable grounds, even though he/she granted the Plaintiff the trust that the contract will be concluded in a certain manner, which constitutes a tort.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to conclude a sales contract with the new business group that the plaintiff trusted the conclusion of the contract of this case and paid to the plaintiff for the preparation cost of KRW 5,000,000,000 for the construction cost of installing the temporary blocking facilities, etc. (2) fee of KRW 19,530,000 for the purpose of recruiting the shop occupants of this case; ③ 20,000,000 which the plaintiff paid to G and I as the down payment for the real estate right transfer contract; ④ 5,50,000, 5,000, 3,000,000,000 for the legal advice cost of the homepage, 3,00,000 for the legal advice cost of the franchise, 3,00,000 for the construction cost of the homepage, and 60,000,000 for the mental suffering suffered by the plaintiff's representative director and the actual representative director (transfer to the plaintiff)

Judgment

If either party to the legal doctrine on the recognition of the defendant's liability for damages causes damages by refusing to conclude a contract without reasonable grounds even though the other party acted in accordance with his/her trust by granting the legitimate expectation or trust that the contract will be concluded in the contract negotiation stage, it constitutes an illegal act exceeding the bounds of the freedom of contract in light of the principle of good faith

(1) The Supreme Court Decision 2001Da53059 Decided April 11, 2003 and Supreme Court Decision 2002Da32301 Decided May 28, 2004, etc.).