1. The defendant's appeal and the claim for return of provisional payment are all dismissed.

2. The return of appeal costs and provisional payments.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus cite it as it is by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The parties' assertion

A. Article 7(6) of the Standard Subcontract Agreement of the Plaintiff’s assertion provides that the Plaintiff may confiscate the full amount of the deposit money on the Defendant’s contract guarantee in the event that the Plaintiff cancels or terminates the instant subcontract due to the Plaintiff’s failure to perform his/her contractual obligations. As such, the Plaintiff lawfully terminated each of the instant subcontract due to the Plaintiff’s failure to perform construction works, each of the instant subcontract. Accordingly, according to each of the instant subcontract and guarantee contracts, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the full amount of the deposit on the guarantee contract (i.e., KRW 168,483,630, KRW 121,042,853, the guarantee amount of the first subcontract in the instant case, KRW 140,000,000, whichever is KRW 149,526,483, which is the remainder of the amount, and damages for delay.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff agreed to each of the instant subcontracting agreements with macroscop construction and completed the settlement of accounts as well as the Plaintiff’s liability to compensate for damage. As such, the Plaintiff cannot claim the Defendant for the payment of deposit under each of the instant contract performance guarantee. Even if it is acknowledged that the Defendant is liable to pay the contract deposit, the scope of payment is “the amount paid by the Defendant to the Defendant as the actual amount suffered by the secured creditor due to the guaranteed accident within the scope of the guaranteed amount, which is increased within the reasonable scope required for the obligor to perform the remaining contract.”