2. Whether or not an indirect construction cost claim has occurred;

3. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this part of the calculation of indirect construction cost is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for addition, deletion, or dismissal as follows. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The first instance court's judgment is 2 under the bottom of the third judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da45989, Jun. 28, 2012).

Part 9 2 " June 25, 2011" shall be changed to " June 25, 2011".

Part III (as part from 12, 3 to 10, 13) shall be deleted, and paragraph 3(b) shall be paragraph 3(a).

Part 14-12-13 attached to "A, prior to the commencement of the construction period," "A, prior to the commencement of the construction period," and "not, prior to the commencement of the construction period, prior to the same end," and "A, prior to the completion of the construction period, at the same end, a witness I who was a supplementary supervisor of the construction of the instant case, concurrently served as a general health supervisor, and concurrently served as a field agent, and the construction plan includes the number of employees, and C stated in the construction plan that "A, due to the absence of the organizational chart submitted by the supervision group, was unable to give any instructions at the supervision group," and at the bottom of the same section, "A, prior to the commencement of the construction period, prior to the commencement of the construction period, prior to the commencement of the construction period," and "A, prior to the completion of the construction period, prior to the completion of the construction period, prior to the completion of the construction period," and "A, prior to the addition of each of the above I's statements and testimony."

No. 15, 9, from 11, “the Plaintiff’s employees did not have evidence,” and “the Plaintiff’s employees did not have evidence,” on the sole basis of each of the evidence Nos. 24-1 to 10, and No. 25, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff employees were divided into overtime work, holiday work, etc. and received benefits for convenience regardless of whether the Plaintiff employees actually engaged in overtime work, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this.”

Each “D” of the 15 pages 13 and 19 pages 19 shall be each “J”.