[2] The case holding that the obligation to pay construction supervision costs falls under "when the remuneration is determined as the period under Article 686 (2) of the Civil Code"

[3] The case holding that the contract fee under the construction supervision contract is unfairly excessive and reduced

[4] Whether it constitutes a change in the content of the construction supervision contract under Article 3 of the Terms and Conditions of Guarantee of Supervision Fee Deposit or a guarantee accident under Article 4, where the construction supervision fees are delivered in cash as a check or a promissory note, unlike the terms and conditions of the construction supervision contract (negative)

[5] Where a business entity is changed during the course of a housing construction project, the business entity is liable to bear supervision costs incurred from the replacement of the business entity to the completion of construction

[6] Whether Article 459 of the Civil Code shall apply to the assumption of overlapping obligation (negative), and the method of interpreting where the intent of the party to the assumption of obligation is unclear

[2] The case holding that although the construction supervision contract provides that "the cost of the construction supervision may be paid in lump sum or in installments," the construction supervision contract shall be paid in principle at a fixed period of time with the intermediate payment over several occasions and the balance, and if the construction supervision contract is actually paid in installments, the construction supervision contract shall be deemed to fall under "when the remuneration is determined in accordance with the period under Article 686 (2) of the Civil Code."

[3] The case holding that the amount of remuneration under the contract for construction supervision is unfairly excessive, considering all circumstances, such as the suspension of most of the construction works due to the failure to perform normal supervision and the stay of only one responsible supervisor at the construction site and the suspension of supervision limited to safety management, civil petition settlement, etc., the amount of remuneration under the contract for construction supervision shall be reduced.

[4] In light of the fact that a check of number of units or a promissory note is widely used as a means of payment between parties to a transaction, it is difficult to deem that the delivery of supervision fees into a check of number of units or a promissory note other than cash, unlike the agreement under the construction supervision agreement, constitutes an alteration of the terms of the supervision agreement that requires prior written approval as stipulated in Article 3 of the terms and conditions of the supervision and guarantee that stipulate the exemption, etc. from the obligation to guarantee

[5] In a case where a new project proprietor is changed while carrying out a housing construction project, barring special circumstances, such as cancellation of a previous supervision contract and new supervision contract between a new project proprietor and a new project proprietor, the former project proprietor shall be deemed to bear the supervision fees pursuant to the terms and conditions of the initial contract, unless there exist special circumstances, such as cancellation of a new supervision contract, and conclusion of a new supervision contract between a new project proprietor and a new supervisor.

[6] In the absence of the consent of the person who provided the security, the security provided by the third person is only applicable to the case of the assumption of the obligation, which is extinguished by the assumption of the obligation, and is not applied to the case of the overlapping assumption of the obligation. On the other hand, the overlapping of the assumption of the obligation is a matter concerning the interpretation of the party's intent under the assumption of the obligation contract, and if it is unclear whether the assumption of the obligation is exempted or if the overlapping person is the person who provided the obligation, it shall be deemed to have taken over it repeatedly.

The defendant shall pay to the original architect office of the plaintiff corporation 207,519,189 won, gold 44,450,450 won, and 5% per annum from October 15, 200 to June 12, 2003, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining appeals are dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit shall be five minutes for both the first and second instances, and the second and the remainder shall be borne by the plaintiffs, and the others by the defendants.

4. The part on which money is paid under paragraph (1) may be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the original architect office of the plaintiff corporation 425,878,504, 107,036,278, and 25% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of the complaint of this case to the date of the first judgment, and from the next day to the date of full payment, to the original architect office of the plaintiff corporation 107,036,278.

2. Purport of appeal

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiffs falling under the following amount of money shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the original construction firm of the plaintiff corporation 342,018,890 won, gold 78,575,376 won to the plaintiff corporation and the original certified architect office of the plaintiff corporation 78,575,376 won, and 5% per annum from the day following the service of the complaint of this case to the day of the decision of the court of first instance, and 25% per annum from the day

The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the following facts: Gap evidence 1-1-4, evidence 2-1 through 3, evidence 4, 7, 8, 9, evidence 10-1, 2, evidence 12-1, 3-4, evidence 12-2, and evidence 17, evidence 3-3, and witness 4 of the first instance court, the statement of evidence 1-1 to 4, evidence 2-1 through 3, evidence 4, evidence 8, and evidence 10-1, 2, and evidence 12-4, and evidence

(a) Guarantee of the obligation to pay supervision fees for teaching assistant construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "intersection construction");

(1) The Plaintiff concluded a construction supervision agreement between the principal contractor and the principal contractor around April 7, 1998, with respect to the construction work of the Dacul Construction Apartment, which is for building design and supervision, and which is executed on the ground, including 43,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won.

(가)교보건설은 원고 주식회사 원건설건축사사무소(1999. 10. 15. 현재의 상호로 변경되었고, 변경되기 전 상호는 주식회사 원건축사사무소였다；이하 '원고 원건설'이라고만 한다)에게 건축공사감리비 금 378,000,000원을 지급하되, 계약시 감리비의 20%에 해당하는 계약금 75,600,000원을, 1998. 4.부터 1999. 9.까지 3개월마다 3개월이 되는 다음달 10.에 금 45,000,000원씩 6회에 걸쳐 중도금 270,000,000원을, 사용검사 완료시 잔금 32,400,000원을 각각 현금으로 지급한다.

(b)An assistant construction shall pay 42,00,000 won for electrical construction supervision costs to the Plaintiff, Japan and Japan Certified architect, Inc. (hereinafter only referred to as Plaintiff, Japan and Japan) on the condition that 8,400,000 won for the contract deposit corresponding to 20% of the supervision costs, and 5,000,000 won for the intermediate payment every three months from April 1998 to September 1, 1999, six times in cash, each of which shall be paid in the amount of KRW 30,000 for the intermediate payment every three months from September 10, 1999, and the balance of KRW 3,600,000 for the completion of the inspection for use.

(2)주택사업공제조합(1999. 2. 8. 법률 제5908호로 개정된 주택건설촉진법에 의하여 피고로 전환되어 피고가 주택사업공제조합의 권리의무를 포괄적으로 승계하였다；이하 '피고'라 한다)은 1998. 5. 26.경 보증기간 1998. 5. 26.부터 1999. 10. 31.까지로 정하여, 교보건설의 원고 원건설에 대한 건축공사감리비 금 378,000,000원 중 계약금 75,600,000원을 제외한 중도금 및 잔금 302,400,000원의, 원고 제일ㆍ원에 대한 전기공사감리비 금 42,000,000원 중 계약금 8,400,000원을 제외한 중도금 및 잔금 33,600,000원의 각 지급채무를 감리비예치보증약관(이하 '약관'이라고만 한다)에 따라 보증하였다.

(3) An assistant construction had defaulted on June 10, 1998, and the plaintiffs reported the suspension of supervisory duties to the petitioner Gun and completed normal supervisory duties until July 10, 1998 for the assistant construction.

(b) Guarantee of the payment of supervision fees for Taeamam Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as " Taeamamam");

(1) In addition, the Plaintiffs agreed on the payment of supervision fees when concluding a construction supervision agreement between Taeamamamam and Taeamamam and Taeamama, which is executed on the lots of land 29-1 and 2, and the construction of the Namamaamae Rental Apartment (hereinafter referred to as the “Tamaama apartment”), which is executed on January 14, 1998, between Taeamam and Taeamama, from January 14, 1998 to April 30, 200.

(a)Tamam shall be paid 587,480,00 won for the construction supervision costs to the plaintiff Won Construction, and the down payment of 117,496,00 won for the contract amount equivalent to 20% of the supervision costs, and 46,98,400 won for the intermediate payment of 422,98,60 won for the last three months from January 1, 1998 to March 200 each nine times from January 1, 1998 to March 200. < Amended by Act No. 422,985,600; Act No. 46,98,400 won for the remainder at the time of completion of inspection for use in cash, respectively.

(b)Taiam shall be paid KRW 146,870,00 for the electrical construction supervision costs to the plaintiff Il-il and Won, and the down payment of KRW 29,374,00 equivalent to twenty percent of the supervision costs at the time of the contract and KRW 11,749,60 for the last payment of KRW 105,746,40 for nine times every three months from January 1, 1998 to March 200, respectively; and KRW 11,749,600 for the remainder at the time of completion of the inspection, in cash, respectively.

(2) From January 15, 1998 to April 30, 200, the Defendant guaranteed each of the payment obligations of KRW 117,496,00,00, excluding the intermediate payment and the remainder of KRW 469,984,00, excluding the down payment of KRW 117,496,00,00, out of the construction supervision costs for the Plaintiff’s original construction work, for the remainder of KRW 587,480,480, excluding the down payment of KRW 117,496,00,00, among the electrical construction supervision costs for the Plaintiff’s first and the remainder of KRW 146,870,00, 00, excluding the down payment of KRW 29,374,000, and the remainder of KRW 117,496,000.

(3) After the conclusion of the above construction supervision contract, the plaintiff suspended the above construction on February 19, 199 while performing normal supervision for Taeamamam. Around June 1999, the plaintiff agreed to implement safety measures for the purpose of preventing accidents that may occur between Taeamamam, the defendant and the representative of the Construction Promotion Committee and facilitating follow-up construction, and the construction promotion committee took safety measures on September 1, 199, and then the construction promotion committee centered on Samamam, a corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "Madam Construction") started the new construction of Taeamamamam, and obtained the approval for modification of the construction plan on August 4, 200, the project operator changed the construction plan from Taeamam to Taeamam, and obtained the approval for modification of the construction plan on September 6, 200.

(4) Notwithstanding the discontinuance of the above construction work and the change of the project owner, the Plaintiff performed supervision over the above construction work even after September 6, 200, for which approval for provisional use was obtained.

(5)Taiam paid 193,996,800 Won for part of the down payment to the plaintiff Won Construction and 16,000 won for part of the down payment and 193,96,800 won for part payment once and twice part payment (46,98,400 won x 2) plus 196,800 won for part payment, 11,749,600 won for part payment and 4,253,600 won for part of the part payment, respectively.

2. Nature of the obligation to pay supervision fees of this case

A. According to the provisions of all construction-related Acts and subordinate statutes, such as Article 2 subparag. 9 of the Construction Technology Management Act, Article 33-6 subparag. 2 through (5) and (8) of the Housing Construction Promotion Act, Articles 34-6(3), 34-7, 34-9, and 34-10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Construction Promotion Act, a supervisor of construction works shall regularly carry out quality inspection of the construction works for the purpose of preventing defective construction works in a third-party position. If the construction works are being performed improperly, it is necessary to ensure that the construction works should be carried out, such as correction, reconstruction, and suspension of the construction works. If the construction works are being carried out according to the plan, it is likely that the construction works will not be carried out at the same time and report the results thereof. It is reasonable to view that the construction works are not carried out for the construction works to the extent that the construction works are not carried out in compliance with the agreement of supervision, and that the construction works are not carried out within the construction site without reasonable nature of the construction works.

(b)As seen in paragraph (1) above, the supervision costs for the plaintiffs of Taeam Construction shall be divided into one to six installments, and the supervision costs for the plaintiffs of Taeamamamam shall be paid periodically in installments from one to nine installments, respectively. Thus, it constitutes "when the remuneration is determined for the period prescribed in Article 686 (2) of the Civil Code." Thus, Article 3 (2) of the Construction Work supervision Contract (Evidence (Evidence 2-3) shall be paid in lump sum or in installments." However, as seen in paragraph (3) of the same Article, it shall be determined in principle that the supervision costs shall be paid in installments as well as in actual installments, so it shall be determined that the supervision costs for the plaintiffs, members, and Taeamamamamamamam, which shall be determined in accordance with the ratio of remuneration under Article 686 (2) of the Civil Code." Thus, it shall be determined that the supervision contract for the part that became due during the period during which the supervision contract has not yet arrived."

3. Determination as to the guarantee of the obligation to pay supervision fees for the construction of a teaching assistant

As seen earlier, since from April 7, 1998 to July 10, 1998, the Plaintiffs performed normal supervisory duties. As such, the Plaintiff was obligated to pay the Plaintiff’s first intermediate payment of KRW 45,000,000, and KRW 5,000,000 to the Plaintiff’s first intermediate payment of which the due date has occurred at the time of the completion of supervisory duties. Of the second intermediate payment of which the due date has not arrived, the Plaintiffs are obligated to pay the Plaintiff’s KRW 4,891,304 ( KRW 45,00,000 x 10/92, less than KRW 400,000) to the Plaintiff’s original construction, and KRW 543,478 ( KRW 5,000 x 3048,500, KRW 4050, KRW 4780, KRW 405050, KRW 94850, KRW 5405,0945, and KRW

4. Determination as to the portion of the guarantee obligation of supervision expenses of Taeamama

A. Part of the supervision cost by February 19, 199

From January 14, 1998 to February 19, 1999, the plaintiffs performed normal supervisory duties. Thus, from among the intermediate payment once to four times that became due as of February 19, 199, Taeamam is liable to pay 3,96,80 won (46,98,400 won) unpaid to the plaintiff original construction, 7,496,00 won (11,749,600 won-4,600 won-4, 250 won-29, 2050 won-2, 3,000 won-2, 250 won-2, 3,49, 259, 200 won-25, 200 won-2, 3,49, 259, 296, 209, 200 won-29, 3,50 days-16, 296, 205, 296, 200 won-25 days-1.

B. The part of supervision fees after February 20, 1999

(1) If the statements in the evidence No. 12 and the testimony of the witness Lee Jong-young at the construction site were gathered to the purport of the entire pleadings, the plaintiffs performed only the supervision limited to the safety supervision, civil petition resolution, etc. without conducting normal supervision, and with only one supervisor at the construction site from February 20, 199 to August 31, 199, because the construction was most interrupted due to the suspension of the construction from February 20, 199 to August 31, 199, which was the date following the date on which Taeamamam was defaulted; the plaintiffs performed the supervision by posting six supervisors, including one supervisor at the construction site from September 1, 1999 to April 30, 200. The plaintiffs did not dispute between the plaintiffs and the above parties that performed only the normal supervision from February 20, 199 to August 31, 200, as the guarantee period for the use inspection was completed.

(2) As seen earlier, a construction supervision contract between the Plaintiff and Thaiam is a delegation contract the term remuneration of which is set, and in principle, a claim for the agreed fee corresponding to the part during which the period has arrived at the time the supervision was actually performed. However, in a case where there is an agreement on the delegated fee in a delegation contract, in light of all the circumstances, such as the progress and difficulty of duties, the degree of effort taken, the status of the contracting party, the amount of the already paid remuneration, the value of the purpose of the contract, the specific profit gained by the delegating due to the delegated affairs, the opportunity expenses incurred by the mandatary in the actual course of performing the delegated affairs, and related regulations, if there is any special circumstance to deem that the agreed fee unfairly excessive and thus contravenes the principle of good faith or the principle of equity (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da30382, Feb. 9, 193, etc.).

(3) In light of all the circumstances, such as the progress and difficulty of the plaintiffs' work process, degree of effort made during the pleading process, the amount of the fee already paid during the construction work of this case, the specific benefits that the defaulted cancer acquired from the plaintiffs' supervisory act, the amount of personnel expenses, and other various opportunity expenses that the plaintiffs have borne in the above supervision process, and related regulations, the agreed remuneration from February 20, 199 to April 30, 200, which is the term of the defendant's guarantee from February 20, 199 to August 31, 199, shall be deemed to go against the principle of trust and good faith or the principle of equity. Thus, supervision fees from February 20, 199 to August 31, 199 shall be reduced to 10% of the agreed remuneration, and supervision fees from September 1, 19 to April 30, 200.

(4)Therefore, with respect to the plaintiff's original construction from February 20, 1999 to August 31, 199, 1) KRW 20,88,178 (46,98,400-26,110,222) which is part of the five part payments during the period of time, 6,98,40 of six part payments, and KRW 31,672,834 (46,98,400 x 62 days x 62 days in total, KRW 99,59,59, 95, 9412 won in total, KRW 10,000 in five part payments for which the period of time has expired, KRW 46,579,970 in total, KRW 196,975,970 in total, KRW 296,975,975,975,941 in total, KRW 296,575,295,25,297 out of the part payments for which has arrived.

(5)In addition, supervision fees from September 1, 1999 to April 30, 200 shall be KRW 15,325,56 ($46,98,400-31,672,834), 8,96,80 (46,998,400 x 46,400), 156,320,766 won (109,424,766 won) for the plaintiff's original construction from September 1, 1999 to April 30, 200, KRW 156,320,760, KRW 109,424,97,97, KRW 297, KRW 309,968,97, KRW 297,967, KRW 1967, KRW 309,979, KRW 197, KRW 1967, KRW 297,2967, KRW 297,2947,97, KRW 197,297,27,

(6) Accordingly, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff original construction for supervision costs from February 20, 199 to April 30, 200, 119,380,477 won (9,95,941 won +109,424,536 won) and gold 29,845,119 won (2,48,985 won + 27,356,134 won) to the plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff'

5. Judgment on the defendant's defense, etc.

(a) Defenses of immunity under Article 3 of the terms and conditions;

First, according to Article 3 of the terms and conditions which are the contents of each of the instant supervision expense guarantee contracts, the guarantee creditor shall obtain prior approval from the defendant in the event of a change in the contents of the construction supervision contract, and the defendant shall not compensate for the damage if the violation is made. Accordingly, the plaintiffs were issued a check of number of units, not cash, as stipulated in the construction supervision contract, from the construction supervision contract, and the defendant was issued a non-cash promissory note for the payment thereof after the lapse of the due date for which the obligation to pay part payments was paid 3 and 4 times, and even after the change in the contents of each of the instant construction supervision contracts was made, they did not obtain prior approval from the defendant

According to the statements in Gap evidence 3-1 to 4, Gap evidence 11, and witness testimony in the first instance trial, the plaintiffs issued 84,000,000 won at par value (75,600,000 + 8,400,000 won) for the payment of supervision fees, and one per unit number issued on June 30, 1998, but refused to pay on June 20, 1998. The plaintiffs were issued 3,4 installments out of the supervision fees for plaintiff Won Construction, 130,000 won, 8,40,000 won at face value for the payment of supervision fees, and 2-time part payments.

However, modification of the terms and conditions of a construction supervision agreement stipulated in Article 3 of the terms and conditions, which must be approved by the defendant in advance, refers to an important matter that may affect the existence of a guarantee agreement, the guarantee period, the calculation of the amount of security deposit, etc. by the modification of the terms and conditions. In light of the fact that the current number of units or promissory notes are widely used as a means of payment between the parties to a transaction, it cannot be deemed that the delivery of a check of units or promissory notes for the repayment of obligations from the principal debtor in the state of default constitutes an amendment

(b) Defenses of immunity under Article 4 of the terms and conditions;

In other words, according to Article 4 of the Terms and Conditions, the defendant shall notify the defendant without delay in the event of a guarantee accident and submit necessary documents to the defendant, and the defendant shall not compensate for any increased damage by neglecting the guarantee creditor's above claim without any justifiable reason. Thus, the plaintiffs' receipt of a check or promissory note, which is not cash, from the school construction and Taeamam, constitutes a guarantee accident under the above terms and conditions, and the plaintiffs' failure to inform the defendant thereof, thereby causing damage to the defendant who lost the opportunity for advance reimbursement. Thus, the defendant is not liable for compensation.

In light of the fact that a bill or promissory note is widely used as a means of payment between the parties to a transaction, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiffs’ receipt of a note or promissory note, not in cash, at its supervision costs, constitutes a guarantee accident under the terms and conditions. Furthermore, the purport of Article 4 of the terms and conditions is that the Plaintiffs’ failure to notify the Defendant of the occurrence of a guarantee accident without delay, thereby hindering the Defendant’s claim preservation measures. The purport of Article 4 of the terms and conditions is not to compensate for any increased loss. The Plaintiffs’ failure to notify the Defendant of the occurrence of a guarantee accident without delay, and the Defendant’s failure to release the Defendant from the guarantee liability for supervision remuneration arising after the date of the first guarantee accident. (See Supreme Court Decision 2001Da62831, Feb. 5, 2002). Therefore, the Defendant’s defense cannot be accepted in this case without any specific assertion and proof as to whether the Defendant actually suffered any loss due to the Defendant’s failure to notify the Plaintiffs.

C. Claim on the extinction of a surety obligation due to the acquisition of supervision expenses

Furthermore, the defendant asserts that since August 9, 1999, Sampo Construction was actually carried out a new construction of Taepo apartment, and around that time Sampo Construction took over the obligation of supervision expenses to the plaintiffs of Taepoam, the defendant's obligation of supervision expenses under Article 459 of the Civil Code was extinguished.

On August 4, 200, as seen earlier, the approval for modification of the housing construction project plan was made to change the project operator of Thai apartment from Thaiam to Thaiam for more than the guarantee period of the defendant, and even if Thaiam Construction has actually been transferred from Thamamam for the defendant's guarantee period to its status as the project operator, in cases where the new project operator is changed during the course of carrying out the housing construction project, the new project operator shall pay the supervision cost equivalent to the period after the change is made pursuant to the agreement between the former project operator and the new project operator, and the supervisor shall be deemed to bear the supervision cost from the previous project operator to the completion of construction in accordance with the initial contract, unless there are special circumstances such as cancellation of the previous supervision contract and new supervision contract between the new project operator and the new project operator. (See Supreme Court Decision 2001Da7554, Feb. 8, 2002; and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiffs exempted from the supervision cost and the new construction agreement and the Plaintiffs exempted from the supervision cost.

In addition, in the absence of the consent of the person who provided the security, the security provided by the third person is only applicable to the case of the assumption of the obligation, which is extinguished by the assumption of the obligation, and is not applied to the case of the counter-performance of the obligation. Meanwhile, the overlapping of the assumption of the obligation is a matter of interpretation of the party's intent as stipulated in the assumption of the obligation, and it is deemed that the assumption of the obligation is discharged if it is not clear whether the assumption of the obligation is exempted or the counter-acceptance of the obligation is not known (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da81948, Jul. 12, 2002, etc.). However, it is insufficient to view the Sampo Construction as a discharge of the obligation to pay supervision expenses to the plaintiffs from the rock, and there is no other evidence to recognize it.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion cannot be seen as any mother or acceptance.

(d) Claim on the extinction of payment obligation of supervision expenses due to payment in kind;

The defendant asserts that since the plaintiffs were transferred to 39 households of Taeam apartment as a substitute payment clause for the payment of supervision fees of Taeamam, the defendant extinguished the obligation to pay supervision fees to the plaintiffs of Taeamam.

According to the statement of Eul evidence No. 2 and the testimony of Lee Jong-young as the witness of the trial party, the plaintiff Won Construction made a promise for payment in kind with the content that the ownership of 661,325,00 won is transferred from Sampo Construction on July 21, 200 as a payment in accord with the design cost of 661,325,00 won and the obligation to pay the unpaid supervision cost, but there is no evidence to acknowledge that Sampo Construction made a registration of ownership to the plaintiffs and made a payment in kind with the supervision payment obligation to the plaintiffs by transferring the registration of ownership to the above apartment. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

6. Conclusion

Then, the defendant has an obligation of 0% for delay damages of 291, 378, 803 won [the above 3-1,891,304 won + 120,107,472 won] and 83-19,40% interest rate of 5% per annum as determined by the Presidential Decree from the 10-6th day after the date of enforcement of the law, 40% per annum from the 10-5th day after the 20-6th day after the date of enforcement of the law, 40-6th day after the 15th day after the 20-6th day after the date of enforcement of the law, 5th day after the 15th day after the 10-6th day after the 20-6th day after the date of enforcement of the law, 5th day after the 15th day after the 20-6th day after the 15th day after the 20-6th day after the 20th day of enforcement of the law.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed as they are without merit. Since part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiffs is unfair, the part of the judgment of the court of first instance which has partially different conclusions shall be accepted, and it shall be revoked, and the payment of the amount and the difference shall be ordered, and the remaining appeals by the plaintiffs shall be dismissed as they are without merit.

Judges Lee In-bok (Presiding Judge)