The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In full view of the evidence, the lower court determined that the ratio of the shares of STX Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “STX Construction”) was 30%, and 247,701,096 won as of July 22, 2013 when STX Construction renounced the remaining construction and changed to 0%, and 212,601,396 won as of July 2, 2013 (=247,701,096 won - 35,09,700 won). Accordingly, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the amount of the pre-paid construction payment, in light of the record, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the amount of the pre-paid construction payment to be returned.

2. In cases of a payment guarantee contract for subcontract consideration concluded by a construction mutual aid association, the existence and scope of such guarantee liability shall be determined on the basis of the terms of construction works stipulated in the subcontract agreement as the object of the payment guarantee contract for subcontract consideration. Therefore, even if the parties to the subcontract have changed the contents of construction works between the parties to the subcontract after the conclusion of the payment guarantee contract for subcontract consideration, if the liability for

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da13447 Decided December 26, 2002, etc.). On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the above share change agreement was invalid for the Defendant on the ground that the obligation to return the advance payment was aggravated due to the change in the share of the STX Construction for the instant construction project, and that the Defendant’s liability for guarantee was aggravated.

The above determination by the court below is in accordance with the legal principles as seen earlier. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the validity of share change agreement and the scope of Defendant’s guarantee liability.

3. Therefore, it is possible.