beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. Examining the contents of the Plaintiff’s additional assertion in the trial of acceptance of the judgment of the first instance, and the evidence submitted in the trial, it is difficult to recognize the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant would have concluded a lease agreement with the Plaintiff clearly. Although the Plaintiff acted in accordance with his trust, it was reversed by the Defendant without a considerable reason, and thus, constitutes a tort.
In addition, the court's explanation on this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the modification of the contents stated in the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, it is citing this as it is by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act
The second line "Before August 2012, 2012" is merely 500 kilowatt (KW), which is less than 13,00 kilowatt (KW), and the second line "this court" is changed to "court of the first instance", and the third line "E testimony and testimony of the witness E" is changed to "the testimony of the witness E, the inquiry results of the first instance court to Jeju Special Self-Governing Province," and the fourth line "12-14, which is less than 13,00 kilowatt (KW), which is less than 13,00 kilowatt (KW), and is not subject to additional permission or possibility of being applied for permission with respect to its capacity, and the second line "The second line of permission with respect to the second line of electricity generation capacity (M)" is not submitted to the Plaintiff, and the second line of application for permission with respect to the same permit with respect to the second line of electricity generation capacity (MW 13,000, 214.21) and the Plaintiff's application for permission for permission for permission for permission for permission for the second line of the second line of the case.
2. Thus, the judgment of the first instance is legitimate.