1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasons why the court accepted the judgment of the court of first instance as to this case are the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the defendant added the judgment as set forth in paragraph (2) above to the corresponding part as to the contents asserted in the court of first instance, and thus, it is citing it as it is in accordance with

(The meaning of the abbreviationd language used below is as in the judgment of the first instance). 2. Additional determination

A. On May 22, 2012, the Defendant’s assertion by the Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenors”) and the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the Intervenor on May 22, 2012, stipulating that the Intervenor will pay a penalty of penalty of penalty of penalty of penalty of KRW 150,00,000 to the Plaintiff in the event of nonperformance, etc. incidental to the instant subcontract.

However, such an agreement is null and void as it constitutes an unfair special agreement prescribed in Article 3-4 of the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act (hereinafter “subcontract”), Article 6-2 subparag. 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Subcontract Act, and an unfair special agreement publicly notified by the Fair Trade Commission, or “an agreement to increase the ratio of the performance bond without justifiable grounds” or “an agreement to require a person other than a subcontractor to provide joint and several surety for contract liability and tort liability even though the subcontractor has performed performance guarantee,” or is deemed null and void as it falls under “an agreement to require a person other than a subcontractor to provide joint and several surety for contract liability” as prescribed in Article 22(5)5 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry.

Ultimately, even though the above agreement is null and void, it is possible to execute it as the judgment citing the plaintiff's claim for the payment of penalty against the intervenor in the preceding lawsuit between the plaintiff and the intervenor became final and conclusive, so the intervenor has the damage claim equivalent to the penalty amount under Article 35 of the Subcontract Act.