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.

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff promoted the business of exporting Jeju-do Jeju-do to Guam. At the time, the Jeju Special Self-Governing Province Development Corporation (hereinafter “ Jeju Development Corporation”) planned an open bid for the selection of a number of new distributors.

Accordingly, on December 2, 2011 and December 21, 2011, the Plaintiff made a pressurization on the Defendant’s representative director, etc.’s proposal for the Sudang-ju Strategy System.

The parties concerned with the defendant committed a promise to the effect that "The defendant's persons concerned have been greatly satisfied with the plaintiff's pressme," "the right to participate in the bid with thickness to receive the successful bid and enter into a consulting contract. The consideration will be satisfactory."

In the process, the plaintiff provided all information and data along with the press data at the request of the defendant, and the defendant sought a successful fee from the plaintiff and discussed about the conclusion of the consulting contract.

B. However, on December 29, 2011, the Defendant informed the Plaintiff that he/she would not unilaterally conclude a consulting contract, and thereafter, the Plaintiff is participating in a three-dimensional open bid with the information and data provided as above and is currently running a three-dimensional distribution business.

C. As can be seen, the Defendant committed an illegal act refusing to conclude a consulting contract without justifiable grounds, even though it granted the Plaintiff a legitimate trust that the consulting contract will be concluded clearly. Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to pay part of the Plaintiff’s damages, which is KRW 1,00,000,000.

(2) At the date of the second pleading of the trial, the Plaintiff stated that the Defendant did not assert damages or unjust enrichment due to the Defendant’s misappropriation of the Plaintiff’s idea on the date of the second pleading of the trial.

A. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the facts of recognition is as follows: “On December 2, 2011, 3rd of the judgment of the court of first instance” is as follows.