1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's selective claim and the first preliminary claim and the second claim added by this court.

1. The first instance court’s judgment on the scope of this court’s selective claims is dismissed based on only one of the selective claims of the plaintiff, and the decision on the remaining claims is unlawful. If the plaintiff appealeds against the judgment of the first instance court that was unlawful as such, so the whole of the plaintiff’s selective claims was transferred to the appellate court. Thus, the part of the selective claims, which was not determined among the selective claims, is not deemed to have been pending in the first

(See Supreme Court Decision 96Da99 delivered on July 24, 1998, etc.). At the first instance court, the Plaintiff: (a) as part of the direct payment agreement (hereinafter “instant agreement”); (b) as part of the guarantee agreement, P&C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “P&C”); (c) made a claim for contractual payment based on the agreement that the Plaintiff shall be held responsible for the full payment of the construction price to the Plaintiff; and (d) the claim for damages arising from nonperformance of the said agreement and the ancillary breach of the said agreement; (b) the first instance court rejected the claim for the construction price and the nonperformance of the said agreement; and (c) did not render any judgment as to the claim for contractual payment based on the instant agreement.

As the plaintiff appealed on this issue, the above claim for the agreed amount is transferred to the appellate court in accordance with the above legal principle and is included in the scope of this court's trial.

2. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

3. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. The Defendant’s summary of the Defendant’s assertion reported KRW 231,00,000 as rehabilitation claims according to the instant subcontract in the simplified rehabilitation procedures, No. 2016, 2010 between Jeonju District Court and Jeonju District Court, and according to the prior C&C’s rehabilitation plan, KRW 150,150,000, which is 65% of the above claims, is converted into equity investment.