must have /would have > finished by tomorrow

[shorty1]

Hello.
Sorry to bother you.
I would like to ask you about this again:

1) He must have finished the report by tomorrow.
2) He would have finished the report by tomorrow.

Both 1) and 2) make sense?

My grammar book(Advanced grammar in use) says: may/might + have + past participle and may/might + be + ~ing to talk about possible events in the past, present and future.
-Do you think Jean may/might have completed the report by now?(past)
-His maths may/might have improved by the time the exam comes round.(future)

We also use should/ought to + have + past participle to talk aoubt an expectation that something happned, has happened, or will happen:
-If the flight was on time, he should/ought to have arrived in Jakartarta early this morning.
-The builders should/ought to have finished by the end of the week.

From the explanation, I assume that Must(or would) + have + past participle can also be used to refer to the future, though it is not referred in my grammar book.

I think this way:
must(would)-an assumption of the future situation + have participle-a completed action or the result of an event


Thank you for your concern.

 

[Crockett]

This is a little tricky. I would change 1 to "He must finish the report by tomorrow." I think 2 is right given the correct hypothetical context. For example, "he would have finished the report by tomorrow if all his pens didn't run out of ink." I'm not too familiar with grammar rules and whatnot- so I might be wrong here...

 

[shorty1]

Thank you for your help Crockett.
I don't know about Korean grammar, either.

Have a great day.~