1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Of the “cases where the management of double-use construction is normalization” as stipulated in Article 5 of the instant agreement, “the completion of the measures for company normalization” is a measure for the normalization of management that guarantees the payment of a price equivalent to the degree of direct cash payment from the Defendant, who is the ordering person, and is deemed as a measure for the normalization of management that can be deemed equal to the loss of effect pursuant to the agreement with the Plaintiff. As such, a pair of construction is the “instant implementation agreement” as of June 25, 2013.

A) The conclusion of the instant agreement does not fall under “the normalization of the management of the two-use construction,” and there is no agreement between the Plaintiff and the construction of the instant agreement to suspend the validity thereof. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the price of supplied goods payable to the Plaintiff according to the instant agreement, KRW 252,682,30, and delay damages therefor. 2) Even if the instant agreement lost its validity pursuant to Article 5, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount payable to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 14(1) of the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act (hereinafter “subcontract Act”).

B. “Completion of the measures for company normalization” as stated in the Defendant’s assertion 1 of this case refers to the conclusion of a performance agreement whereby construction by double-use is capable of securing cash liquidity necessary for settling electronic bills against the subcontractor.

The two-use construction entered into the instant performance agreement, and thereafter, the Plaintiff agreed, explicitly or implicitly, to receive electronic bills from the two-use construction and to terminate the validity of the instant agreement.

Therefore, the agreement of this case has already become null and void.