2. The receiver B of the rehabilitation company B, who is a litigation taking over the lawsuit of the B company.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1, 2, and 4, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that: (a) the order of the Plaintiffs to change the method of construction into the method of sV to be executed falls under the review and confirmation negligence in accordance with the design documents; and (b) supervision of the construction of the school angle by the Plaintiffs constitutes neglect of examination and confirmation as to whether the sV was installed within the scope of allowable errors at

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is just and acceptable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence by violating logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the scope of application of subparagraph 5 (b) 1 of Article 13-6 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Construction Technology Management Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 315, Dec. 20, 2010) [Attachment

2. As to the third ground of appeal, the lower court determined that the above ground of appeal is identical to the grounds of disposition of this case, even if the ground of disposition of this case is not included in the grounds of disposition of this case. In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is just, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on the scope of the grounds of disposition and the addition of the grounds of disposition.

3. As to the fifth ground for appeal

Even if the Defendant completed the construction, the lower court determined that each of the instant dispositions violated the principle of trust and good faith or did not constitute an abuse of rights. Examining in light of relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal doctrine on

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yang Chang-soo

Justices Go Young-young

Justices Kim Chang-suk