The judgment of the first instance court is modified as follows. A.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 31,956,761 and KRW 237,637,310 among them.

1. The reasoning of this court’s judgment on this part of the underlying facts is as stated in paragraph (1) of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except where the “instant contract” under subparagraph 2 of Article 12 of the Civil Procedure Act is deemed to be “ August 26, 2014,” and the “9.95 billion won was submitted” under the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the “minimum price was submitted” under subparagraph 15 as “the successful bidder,” and the “instant contract” under subparagraph 17 is deemed to be “the instant subcontract” under the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. As such, it is cited as is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The reasoning of the judgment of this court on this part of the parties’ assertion is as stated in Paragraph 2 of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for partial dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Paragraph (2) of the first instance judgment

A. Of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the following content is added to 2:

“The contract statement attached to the instant subcontract is indicated as KRW 62,465,753 as a bill discount, but this is prepared in accordance with the agreement after the lowest bid price was set unfairly lower than the subcontract price, and the Plaintiff merely received the price according to the nature of the contract and did not receive the bill discount, and thus, it cannot be deemed as a bill discount, and therefore, it cannot be viewed as a bill discount, and therefore, it cannot be deducted when the bill discount was paid.”

A. Of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the following content is added to 3.

As long as the prime contractor determines a subcontract price at a price lower than the lowest bid price in a subcontract by competitive bidding, it was determined by an agreement after the competitive bidding.

Even if the subcontract price is considered to be an act of determining unfair subcontract price pursuant to the Subcontract Act, and the defendant's condition of reduction is naturally guaranteed by the Subcontract Act, so there may be legitimate grounds for excluding the illegality thereof.