With the rapid advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs), recent studies have drawn attention to their potential for handling not only simple question-answer tasks but also more complex conversational abilities and performing human-like behavioral imitations. In particular, there is considerable interest in how accurately LLMs can reproduce real human emotions and behaviors, as well as whether such reproductions can function effectively in real-world scenarios. However, existing benchmarks focus primarily on knowledge-based assessment and thus fall short of sufficiently reflecting social interactions and strategic dialogue capabilities. To address these limitations, this work proposes a methodology to quantitatively evaluate the human emotional and behavioral imitation and strategic decision-making capabilities of LLMs by employing a Buy and Sell negotiation simulation. Specifically, we assign different personas to multiple LLMs and conduct negotiations between a Buyer and a Seller, comprehensively analyzing outcomes such as win rates, transaction prices, and SHAP values. Our experimental results show that models with higher existing benchmark scores tend to achieve better negotiation performance overall, although some models exhibit diminished performance in scenarios emphasizing emotional or social contexts. Moreover, competitive and cunning traits prove more advantageous for negotiation outcomes than altruistic and cooperative traits, suggesting that the assigned persona can lead to significant variations in negotiation strategies and results. Consequently, this study introduces a new evaluation approach for LLMs' social behavior imitation and dialogue strategies, and demonstrates how negotiation simulations can serve as a meaningful complementary metric to measure real-world interaction capabilities-an aspect often overlooked in existing benchmarks.