1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the subsequent order of payment shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except where each corresponding part is cited or added as stated in the following 2. Thus, this shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. From 4th to 6th of the judgment of the court of first instance, a part written by the court of first instance.

2. The gist of the plaintiff's assertion 1) The performance bond of this case, which occurred without the right to confiscate the performance bond of this case, is subject to the right to confiscate only if the preferred bidder did not conclude this contract without any justifiable reason. However, the conclusion of this contract according to the first bidding, which is not attributable to the fact that the Ethical Capital, one of the consortium members, attempted to exclude the plaintiff, who is the largest investor, from the consortium members, was the attempt to exclude the plaintiff from the consortium members, and it is not attributable to the plaintiff's cause, and it is difficult to view that the right to confiscate the performance bond of this case has not occurred to the defendant. 2) The plaintiff and the defendant agreed to intentionally add the first bidding and the second bidding to exclude the plaintiff from the bidding of Ethical Capital. In the process, the defendant renounced the right to confiscate the performance bond of this case and agreed to substitute the above money with the second bidding performance bond.

However, the Defendant participated in the second bidding and notified the Plaintiff of the occurrence of a large amount of contingent debt by the Defendant’s subsidiaries, etc., which should be selected as the priority bidder, thereby hindering the conclusion of the second bidding contract in violation of the principle of good faith, and thus, the conclusion of this contract was not possible. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to return the instant performance bond, which was substituted by the second bidding performance bond, to the Plaintiff.

3. The performance bond of this case to reduce the estimated amount of damage compensation shall be in its legal nature.