1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

1. The facts subsequent to the facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or may be acknowledged by taking into account the whole purport of the pleadings as a whole in each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 3, 5, 7, 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 4, 8, 16 (hereinafter referred to as " separate numbers"), unless otherwise specified.

1) The Korea Land and Housing Corporation shall enter into a construction contract with the Plaintiff on March 3, 2009 and the Korea Land and Housing Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the “Korea Land and Housing Corporation”).

(2) The joint contractors consisting of the joint contractors (hereinafter referred to as the “joint contractors of this case”).

[1] The term “this case’s construction work” (including fire fighting work; hereinafter “this case’s construction work”) in the Daejeon residential environment improvement district

) the contract amount of KRW 9,226,704,00 (after this, KRW 11,216,740,000; and

(2) From March 17, 2009 to October 31, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a contract under which the contract was made by setting the construction period (on November 30, 201, outdoor) as the representative of the instant joint supply and demand organization. (2) The Plaintiff was designated as the representative of the instant joint supply and demand organization, to implement 51% of the instant electrical construction among the instant construction, and the comprehensive electricity was to implement 49% of the electrical construction and 100% of the fire-fighting construction.

B. On March 17, 2009, the General Electricity Co., Ltd. (1) increased the entire construction cost to KRW 3.94 billion to the Defendant on March 17, 2009 (e.g., KRW 4,403,521,000).

(2) On October 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a lump sum subcontract contract with the Defendant for the entire part of the instant construction work that the Plaintiff performed to the Defendant (i.e., KRW 2,782,131,463 (i.e., KRW 3,529,627,216). However, in order to avoid the so-called lump sum subcontract prohibited by the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, the Plaintiff did not prepare a subcontract contract, unlike the subcontract contract between the Defendant and a comprehensive electricity.

C. Hanju Co., Ltd.’s supply of materials and payment 1) Hanju Co., Ltd.’s L&WEL (hereinafter “Korea L&WEL”).

on May 2011.