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. As to this case, the reasoning of the court of first instance, which cited the judgment, is correct as follows, the part which appears to be obvious errors or clerical errors in the judgment of the court of first instance, and accepted the defendant's grounds of appeal according to the review result of this court, and the relevant part of the judgment of the court of first instance is corrected as follows. In addition, among the judgment of the court of first instance, from 12th to 15th 12th 12th 15th 12 of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part which "4." in the judgment of the court of first instance, 15th 10 of the judgment of the court of first instance, is obvious to be a clerical error in the judgment of first instance, and thus, the part which

The part is deleted, and the judgment of the plaintiff's assertion that is specifically emphasized or newly raised by this court as the grounds for appeal and that of the defendant's grounds for appeal is inconsistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for addition of Paragraph 3. Thus, this part is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

Correctioned Parts

A. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part on “ October 7, 2015” of the first instance and the part on “ October 20, 2015.”

B. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the “beneficiary” in the part of the “Contractor” is 7.

C. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part “other than that” in the 7th instance judgment is not “....”

D. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, “six (3)” parts below 10 (3) and “4)”

2. On the other hand, on March 9, 2015, the Plaintiff’s credit rating as of March 9, 2015, which was concluded by the instant subcontract, was exempted from the payment guarantee of subcontract consideration. As the Plaintiff’s credit rating changed to “A-” on November 20, the grounds for exemption became extinct.

As a result, the Plaintiff should have guaranteed the payment of subcontract price to F in accordance with the main sentence of Article 13-2(2) of the former Subcontract Act. However, the amount of subcontract price from BF is subject to the second revision contract of this case.