1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 44,161,955 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from January 19, 2016 to January 18, 2017; and (b) the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 21, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a steel contract with the Defendant and the Defendant to supply the steel bars supplied by the Defendant to the new construction site of the Sejong-si 3-3 Living Zone M6B/L, which is to be processed by the Plaintiff and supplied to the construction site of the Sejong-si 3-3 Living Zone M6B/L (hereinafter “instant processing contract”).

B. The content of the contract amount under the instant processing contract is as follows.

Article 2 (Contract Amount) Contents 47,500 won/metric of steel processing costs, 47,500 won/metric value added tax 1) LOSS ratio 2%: SDA400, SDR500, SDR600, and the contract amount included in the total scale shall be calculated on the basis of the contract amount of 18,000 tons, and the contract amount may vary when the contract quantity is changed.

In such cases, the processing unit price shall not be adjusted.

C. Under the instant processing contract, the Plaintiff processed and supplied a total of 1577.169 tons of steel bars to the Defendant, and received KRW 26,274,592 from the Defendant.

On October 1, 2015, the Defendant verbally notifies the Plaintiff that the instant processing contract is terminated on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s delivery of steel bars was delayed, and the same month.

5. The instant processing contract was sent to the effect that it would be terminated.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff the steel bars processing cost under the instant processing contract, and violated the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act (hereinafter “subcontract Act”) due to the revocation of unfair entrustment.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay KRW 118,663,275, and KRW 256,326,081, which is equivalent to three times the special damages incurred to the plaintiff due to the defendant's unfair termination of contract, as the defendant ordered 87,802,362, and the defendant's 18,000 tons of non-paid steel processing charges to the plaintiff, but revoked the entrustment and lost its operating profits.