The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows: (a) the relevant part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is identical to that of the relevant part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the following portions, and thus, (b) the same is acceptable pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Article 1-B(b) of the text of the judgment of the court of first instance (Article 1-2(b) of the judgment of the court of first instance from No. 15 to No. 3) is as follows:

B. Public announcement of the defendant's prize competition and the plaintiff's winning prize competition

(9) The estimated design cost (estimated amount): approximately 220,000,000 won (including surtax) for the extended construction works in this case;

5. Method of determining the winner (1) Method of selecting the winner in accordance with the criteria set by the Deliberation Committee on Design of the defendant's Prize, taking into account the "Guidelines for Public Offering of Design" as publicly notified pursuant to Article 25 of the Enforcement Rule of the Construction Technology Management Act, and (2) Method of conducting a comprehensive evaluation by applying the weight between 80% of the technology evaluation and 20% of the price evaluation (3) Method of technical evaluation, and the criteria for price evaluation shall be based on the instant Guidelines.

2. Public offering procedures;

2. 2. Site site: No site site site exists, and it shall be substituted for the guidelines of this case.

2.3. Questions and answers;

(a)a question may be made in writing on matters of which content is unclear or difficult under the guidance;

2. 6. Compensation for writing;

(a)provide the winner with the basic and working design rights;

No subscriber shall raise any objection to the results of the examination.

2. Rights and duties of a winner;

(a) The winner shall carry out the design work by completing the service contract on the date designated by the defendant;

(c).