1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 2014, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the Defendant to participate in construction works with the content that the Defendant received a contract with C (hereinafter referred to as “C”) for the blasting construction work among the Jeju-si D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “instant blasting construction work”) during the period of construction work, from November 10, 2014 to May 30, 2015, and from November 10, 2014 to May 30, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “instant construction contract”).

B. On February 9, 2015, the Defendant received a public notice from C to the effect that “In the event of re-subcontracting in violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, the Defendant may either be punished or the contract may be terminated” (hereinafter “instant public notice”).

C. The Defendant paid KRW 172,416,502 to the Plaintiff for the instant blasting construction work, including powders, equipment, oil supply, materials supply, and food supply, and paid KRW 85,140,000 (excluding value-added tax) to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion completed the instant blasting construction project, and the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 84,118,498, and delay damages for the amount calculated by deducting KRW 85,140,00, which was paid directly by the Defendant, from the construction cost under the instant construction contract, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff KRW 172,416,50,02, out of the construction cost under the instant construction contract. (2) After concluding the instant construction contract, C knew of the fact of re-subcontract, and sent the instant public text to C.

Accordingly, the defendant notified the plaintiff of this fact, and agreed that the plaintiff would settle the costs incurred in relation to the equipment and human parts invested in the construction site for the blasting construction of this case, and the defendant directly performed the blasting construction of this case, and the plaintiff thereafter.