The judgment below

Among them, the part concerning the payment order is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. Article 4(1) of the former Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act (amended by Act No. 10475, Mar. 29, 2011; hereinafter “subcontract”) provides, “When a prime contractor entrusts a subcontractor with the manufacture, etc., he/she shall not force a subcontractor to determine or receive a subcontract price at a remarkably lower level than that generally paid for the same or similar manufacture, etc. of an object, etc. by using unlawful means.” Article 4(2) provides, “The act of a prime contractor falling under any of the following subparagraphs shall be deemed to have determined unreasonable subcontract price.” Article 4(2)1 of the Subcontract Act provides, “The act of a prime contractor who falls under any of the following subparagraphs shall be deemed to have determined a subcontract price by reducing the unit price at a uniform rate without justifiable grounds.” Article 4(2)1 of the Subcontract Act provides, “The act of reducing the unit price at a uniform rate” refers to an act of reducing the unit price at a certain rate or rate without considering individual differences in the situation of business management of two or more subcontractors, type, size of trade, quality, raw materials, etc.”

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du1990, Mar. 10, 201). The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the Plaintiff’s interest.