1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's primary claim (including the part extended at the trial) and the preliminary claim.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the underlying facts is that, except that the testimony of the witness H is deemed to be “each testimony of the witness H and the witness M at the court of first instance” as “each testimony of the witness at the court of first instance” under the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, this part of the reasoning for the judgment is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. Judgment as to the main claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s representative director, in order to compensate for the difference between the construction amount under the first agreement and the construction amount under the construction contract between H and the Defendant, prepared and executed the instant subcontract agreement, the payment note, and the notarial deed to the Defendant. Since the Defendant knew or could have known of this, the Defendant’s above acts are null and void. As such, the Defendant’s above acts are deemed null and void, and KRW 795,107,643, which the Defendant received as dividends based on the instant notarial deed, should be returned to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment. 2) Since the Defendant took part in the act of breach of trust and suffered considerable damage to the Plaintiff, the Defendant is jointly and severally liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages due to the tort.

B. As seen earlier, the following facts are as follows: (a) the Plaintiff already awarded a contract for all of the instant construction works, and thus did not have the authority to separately determine and pay the subcontract price for the instant construction works with the Defendant; (b) in preparing the instant subcontract agreement, H had the Defendant liable for the Defendant with the liability of KRW 90 million, which is the difference between the construction price under the first agreement and the subcontract price under the agreement entered into with G (hereinafter “instant act bearing the obligation”); and (b) G has either set the contract price of KRW 3.749 billion excessively, or set the contract price of KRW 4.73 billion, which was set to be guaranteed by H to the Defendant.