The judgment below

The payment order concerning the reduction of unit price at a uniform rate shall be reversed, and this part shall be reversed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

A. Article 4(1) of the former Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act (amended by Act No. 10475, May 28, 2013; hereinafter “subcontract”) provides that “When a prime contractor entrusts a subcontractor with the manufacture, etc., he/she shall not compel the subcontractor to determine or accept a subcontract price at a remarkably lower level than the price that is generally paid for the same or similar manufacture, etc. of an object, etc. using improper means.”

Article 4(2) of the Subcontract Act provides, “The act of a principal contractor falling under any of the following subparagraphs shall be deemed to have determined unreasonable subcontract consideration.” Article 4(2)1 of the Subcontract Act provides, “The act of a principal contractor which sets a unit price at a uniform rate without justifiable grounds.” “The act of reducing a unit price at a uniform rate” means the act of reducing a unit price at a certain rate that does not reflect the same rate or the aforementioned difference in individual circumstances, such as the situation of management of two or more subcontractors, the type, size, size, quality, quality, raw materials, manufacturing method, manufacturing process, etc. of goods, etc. means the act of reducing a unit price in relation to

In addition, if the determined reduction rate may be deemed to have reduced the unit price at a certain rate as a whole or in accordance with a certain classification in light of the above standard even if there is a difference between the subcontractor and the subcontractor, it shall be deemed to constitute “act of determining the subcontract price at a uniform rate

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Du1990 Decided March 10, 201, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du1990, Apr. 2, 2009).