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.

Ⅰ. The reasoning of the first instance judgment citing the reasoning of the first instance judgment is reasonable, and this is also the same when examining the statements 1, 2, and 3 of the evidence No. 17-2 and the testimony of the witness C at the court of first instance submitted at the court of first instance along with the evidence submitted at the court of first instance. Thus, the reasoning of the first instance judgment is cited for this reason in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the following is added to the judgment as to the plaintiff'

Ⅱ Judgment attached to the court below

1. The Plaintiff asserts that the non-committee agreement is null and void because the non-committee agreement violates Article 3-4(1) of the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act (amended by Act No. 10475, Mar. 29, 201; hereinafter the same) or the contract content subject to the non-committee agreement falls under Article 4(2)1 and 8 of the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act and thus becomes null and void.

However, it is obvious that the content of the partial proposal, which was stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, cited by the foregoing judgment, does not fall under the language and text of Article 3-4(1) of the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act.

In addition, Article 4 of the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act does not stipulate any provision on the validity of a subcontract agreement in violation of the provision, while allowing a principal contractor who has violated the provision to be punished by a fine, and allowing the Fair Trade Commission to investigate only certain violations, and allowing the principal contractor to take corrective measures or impose a penalty surcharge on the principal contractor according to the result. Thus, the above provision cannot be deemed as a provision denying the validity of a contract between the principal contractor and the subcontractor in violation of the provision.

Therefore, we cannot accept the plaintiff's assertion that differs from this premise, and unit price is at a uniform rate as stipulated in Article 4 (2) 1 of the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act.