1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added in the trial are all dismissed.

2. After filing an appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the addition of Paragraph 2 to the judgment on the conjunctive claim added in the trial of the first instance. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. Judgment on the conjunctive claim added at the trial

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The interior construction of the instant building interior contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant (hereinafter the Plaintiff’s assertion that the interior interior works of the instant building are “the instant construction works” and the contract is “the instant contract”.

(2) Even if the contract was not concluded, the Plaintiff had already completed the planning and design as the most important work in the instant construction work at the Defendant’s request and submitted its implementation plan to the Defendant, and the Defendant is obligated under the good faith principle to cooperate with the Defendant for the conclusion of the instant contract and the smooth performance of the contract. (2) However, as the Defendant refused to conclude the instant contract without any justifiable reason, the Defendant shall compensate the Plaintiff for the costs equivalent to the Plaintiff’s labor and material that the Plaintiff invested until the time, namely, the costs equivalent to the Plaintiff’s labor and material that the Plaintiff incurred, i.e., the engineering project cost (140%) and damages for delay.

B. Determination 1) If either party grants a legitimate expectation or trust that a contract will be concluded at the negotiation stage, and the other party refuses to conclude a contract without any justifiable reason and causes damage to the other party, 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 9Da40418, Jun. 15, 2001). Therefore, as to whether the Defendant gave the Plaintiff a legitimate expectation or trust that the contract of this case would be concluded definitely, the aforementioned evidence is added to the witness G at the trial.