1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. Upon the conjunctive claim added by this court, the defendant 74,250.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the witness of the second instance court shall be used as the witness of the first instance court under the first instance court's first instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second

2. Additional determination

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant electrical construction contract is null and void is asserted as follows. The Defendant, on the following grounds, is obligated to pay the construction cost settled in relation to the instant electrical construction to the Plaintiff. ① The Defendant unilaterally set the construction cost at KRW 50 million upon entering into the instant electrical construction contract with the Plaintiff. This is the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act (hereinafter “subcontract”).

(2) The instant electrical construction contract concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is null and void, since it constitutes “determination of unreasonable subcontract consideration” in violation of Article 4(2)4 (i.e., creating an error in terms of terms and conditions of transaction, such as the volume of order ordered, or presenting an estimate or a false estimate by another business operator, etc.). The electrical construction contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is prohibited from being awarded a contract or executed (Article 3(1)), and should be placed separately from other types of work (Article 11(1)), and the constructor shall not give a subcontract for the contracted electrical construction to another business operator (Article 14(1)). However, the Defendant included a electrical construction of KRW 125 million, when concluding the instant construction contract with C, other than an electrical construction business operator.

Thus, the part concerning electrical construction among the contract of this case, which the defendant contracted to C, and C, shall be the plaintiff.