1. The defendant's appeal and the request for return of provisional payment are all dismissed.

2. Expenses for filing an application for the return of the provisional payment of the appeal.

1. The court's explanation of this case is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, this case is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The following shall be added between the 9th sentence of the first instance and the 16th sentence:

【The remaining construction period has been at least two years and six months as of November 2013, where the issue of unpaid money occurred between the Intervenor and the Intervenor joining the Defendant and D, and the development of the shipbuilding industry, which is the follow-up business, began on October 2014 after the completion of the prior process. However, considering the above circumstances, the Plaintiff at the time of the termination of the instant subcontract, it can be deemed that there is a sufficient ground to determine that the Intervenor was unable to complete the construction in the air or unable to normally implement the terms and conditions of the contract due to the cause attributable to the Plaintiff (as seen in the rear, as seen earlier), when the Plaintiff finally expressed his intention to terminate the contract on February 20, 2014, the Defendant Intervenor failed to resolve the issue of unpaid money with D even around that time, and accordingly, D filed a complaint with the Defendant Intervenor, and it seems difficult to expect that the above problem would be solved only by the Plaintiff’s representative director from the point of view of the Plaintiff.

(i)Paragraph 9 of the Decision of the first instance court of " will have occurred" shall be added to the following:

Even if the termination of the subcontract as of December 2, 2013 is not recognized, if a comprehensive review of the whole process was conducted between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s Intervenor and the Defendant’s Intervenor by February 20, 2014, the Plaintiff expressed his/her intent to terminate the contract for reasons attributable to the Defendant’s Intervenor on February 20, 2014 at the latest. Accordingly, the Defendant’s assertion that there is no ground to acknowledge the termination of the subcontract of this case is without merit.