A. The Plaintiff et al. (1) is a business entity that is not an “small and medium business proprietor” under Article 2(1) of the Framework Act on Small and Medium Enterprises (hereinafter “small and Medium Business Entity”).

From January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2009, the Plaintiff entrusted the processing of vessel parts, etc. to 89 companies indicated in the column of the subcontractor in attached Table 2, including A, a small and medium enterprise owner, etc. (hereinafter “the subcontractor in this case”).

(2) The Plaintiff constitutes a principal contractor under Article 2(2)1 of the former Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act (wholly amended by Act No. 9971, Jan. 25, 2010; hereinafter “subcontract Act”) in the instant subcontract transaction, and the subcontractor constitutes a subcontractor under Article 2(3) of the Subcontract Act, among small and medium entrepreneurs entrusted with the provision of processing labor by the Plaintiff, such as vessel block assembly, processing, painting, and design. The instant subcontractor constitutes a subcontractor under Article 2(3) of the Subcontract Act.

B. The form of subcontract transactions between the Plaintiff and the subcontractor (1) subcontract transactions for the building of vessels by the Plaintiff is largely divided into “purchase procurement subcontract transactions” made in the organization affiliated with the Plaintiff’s procurement team and “pre-processed subcontract transactions” made in the supervision of the Cooperative Operation Team.

Among them, subcontract transactions is a transaction in which the plaintiff provides all the production facilities and materials necessary for building a ship to the subcontractor and the subcontractor puts only the labor force.

Such a contract for processing subcontract transactions is in accordance with the calculation method of the subcontract price.