1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance which exceeds the following amount ordered to be paid.

1. The grounds for the cited judgment of the court of first instance are the same as that of the defendant company among the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the modification or addition of the judgment as set forth in the following paragraphs 2 and 3, and therefore, they shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence of

2. The modified part;

A. As to the claim for KRW 55,164,896 out of the reduced maintenance cost under the first contract, the part concerning the claim shall be described from Section 6, 13 to Section 18, of the first instance judgment, as follows.

The Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit for the following reasons. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion is premised on the invalidation of an agreement for reduction in violation of Article 11 of the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act (hereinafter “subcontract”), which prohibits unfair reduction in subcontract consideration.

However, Article 11 of the Subcontract Business Act does not stipulate any provision on the validity of the contract for price reduction in violation of the provision, while Article 11 does not stipulate any provision on the validity of the contract for price reduction in violation of the provision, and requires the Fair Trade Commission to investigate only a certain case of violation of the provision, and requires the Commission to order corrective measures or impose penalty on the principal contractor according to the result. Thus, the above provision does not constitute a provision denying the legal effect of the contract between the principal contractor and the subcontractor

(see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da53457, Jan. 27, 2011). Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that differs from this premise is without merit in itself.

In addition, in full view of the evidence and the following circumstances recognized by the court of first instance as cited earlier, the defendant company did not recognize that the defendant company unfairly reduced the cost of maintenance and repair under the first contract, which is the subcontract price, by taking advantage of the superior position, and rather, reasonable settlement agreements between the plaintiff and the defendant company.