1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

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

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, this is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The plaintiff added the following contents to the 4th page of the first instance judgment. The plaintiff asserts that, in the case of ATs which are able to contribute to the performance of this case, the contract unilaterally favorable to ATs was concluded by the plaintiff, who is an expert in the performance, for instance, such as the plaintiff's limited competition and the payment of a considerable portion of the price for the defective manager of the contract. Thus, the defendant granted discretion to the plaintiff, who is an expert in the performance, and the defendant approved the contract with ATs by confirming the plaintiff's report related to ATs contract. Thus, the notification of the suspension of the performance of this case due to the simple change of the defendant's simple termination of the performance of this case constitutes a tort as an unfair termination of contract negotiation.

However, there is a lack of evidence to acknowledge that the transaction practices as alleged by the Plaintiff have been settled on the sole basis of the evidence Nos. 15 and 16, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Moreover, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of such transactional practice to the Defendant and received discretion on the intervention of the list and the conclusion of the contract from the person in charge of the Defendant’s responsibility.

(If the practice of the performance industry is true, the Plaintiff, who has a wide experience in the performance-related transactions, should have taken measures, such as making the Defendant take responsibility for the burden of expenses incurred under a provisional contract, etc., even before entering into a contract with the Defendant, which entails a considerable amount of expenses. Meanwhile, according to each description of the evidence No. 2-5 and No. 7, the Defendant’s E act on May 9, 2017, where the Defendant’s E act was in progress.