A. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning the instant case is next to the judgment of the first instance.

This is the same as the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the revision as stated in the following paragraph and addition of the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in paragraph (2).

B. 1) The amendment of the first instance court’s judgment is just based on the “certificate 15” of the first instance judgment No. 6, 8 (including each number; hereinafter, the same includes any number other than the case where the number is indicated particularly) and the “indirect construction cost claim due to the extension of the contract period of the second and the sixth number” is added. 2) The part from the second to the 16th 10th tier below, which is the judgment of the first instance court’s “indirect construction cost claim due to the extension of the contract period of the second and the sixth number.”

Article 23 of the General Conditions of the Construction Contract in this case is excluded from the case of increasing the amount of construction works for modification of design in the adjustment of the contract amount by the number of vehicles under Article 23 of the General Conditions of the Construction Contract in this case (the case of Article 20 of the General Conditions of the Construction Contract in this case is excluded from the case of Article 20

() The plaintiffs' assertion that the contract period has been extended due to the increase in the volume of construction due to the modification of the design as the supplementary revised budget was allocated, in case of the 5th multiple contracts, when considering the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 18 through 20, Gap evidence No. 8-1, 3, 4, 9-1, 2, 46-50, and the 5th multiple contracts, and that the additional revised budget was allocated (other than this, the grounds for extending the contract period of 5 and 6th multiple contracts are not the increase in the volume of construction due to the modification of the design as above, but the pure construction period has been extended due to the pure extension of the construction period due to the extension of the contract period

On a different premise, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.