2. The costs of the lawsuit after the appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

피고는 (1) 원고 주식회사 한일철도에게 474,547,000원 및 그 중 64,397,593원에 대하여는 2015. 1. 16.부터, 29,039,429원에 대하여는 2015. 2. 22.부터, 23,470,319원에 대하여는 2015. 3. 24.부터, 25,537,779원에 대하여는 2015. 4. 25.부터, 25,054,828원에 대하여는 2015. 5. 25.부터, 24,113,922원에 대하여는 2015. 6. 21.부터 각 2015. 7. 7.자 청구취지 및 원인 변경신청서 부본 송달일까지 연 6%의, 각 그다음 날부터 갚는 날까지 연 15%의 각 비율로 계산한 금원을, 그 중 26,023,731원에 대하여는 2015. 7. 25.부터, 26,687,998원에 대하여는 2015. 8. 24.부터, 25,828,084원에 대하여는 2015. 9. 26.부터, 25,327,467원에 대하여는 2015. 10. 25.부터, 26,531,347원에 대하여는 2015. 11. 24.부터, 24,789,188원에 대하여는 2015. 12. 22.부터, 26,910,309원에 대하여는 2016. 1. 16.부터, 26,304,036원에 대하여는 2016. 2. 23.부터, 25,501,116원에 대하여는 2016. 3. 25.부터, 27,746,558원에 대하여는 2016. 4. 25.부터 각 2016. 5. 12.자 청구취지 및 원인 변경신청서 부본 송달일까지 연 6%의, 각 그다음 날부터 갚는 날까지 연 15%의 각 비율로 계산한 금원을, 그 중 21,283,297원에 대하여는 2016. 5. 24.부터 2016. 11. 29.자 청구취지 및 원인 변경신청서 부본 송달일까지 연 6%, 그다음 날부터 갚는 날까지 연 15%의 각 비율로 계산한 금원을 각 지급하고, (2) 원고 주식회사 대한철도에게 71,088,929원 및 그 중 9,180,588원에 대하여는 2015. 1. 16.부터, 9,674,619원에 대하여는 2015. 5. 9.부터, 2,869,981원에 대하여는 2015. 5. 19.부터, 2,446,055원에 대하여는 2015. 6. 21.부터 각 2015. 7. 7.자 청구취지 및 원인 변경신청서 부본 송달일까지 연 6%의, 각 그다음 날부터 갚는 날까지 연 15%의 각 비율로 계산한 금원을, 그 중 3,098,542원에 대하여는 2015. 8. 1.부터, 3,158,756원에 대하여는 2015. 8. 31.부터, 2,507,989원에 대하여는 2015. 9. 27.부터, 5,645,138원에 대하여는 2015. 12. 6.부터, 5,879,076원에 대하여는 2016. 2. 11.부터, 6,730,490원에 대하여는 2016. 4. 17.부터 각 2016. 5. 12.자 청구취지 및 원인변경신청서 부본 송달일까지 연 6%의, 각 그다음 날부터 갚는 날까지 연 15%의 각 비율로 계산한 금원을, 그 중 3,145,020원에 대하여는 2016. 5. 13.부터, 2,748,822원에 대하여는 2016. 9. 7.부터, 2938,646원에 대하여는 2016. 7. 12.부터, 2,943,402원에 대하여는 2016. 8. 7.부터, 2,825,366원에 대하여는 2016. 10. 1.부터, 2,703,006원에 대하여는 2016. 10. 17.부터, 2,593,434원에 대하여는 2016. 11. 11.부터 2016. 11. 29.자 청구취지 및 원인 변경신청서 부본 송달일까지 연 6%의, 각 그다음 날부터 갚는 날까지 연 15%의 각 비율로 계산한 금원을 각 지급하라.

[Plaintiff, as the primary claim, sought consent to the application for the adjustment of the contract amount due to price fluctuation, and sought a payment of the contract amount adjusted by index adjustment rate as a preliminary claim, but the primary claim was withdrawn at the trial, and expanded the claim as above.]

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance shall be amended as follows:

(1) The defendant shall pay 4.5, 78, 796 and 1.6.2 to 5.6, to 2.5, to 2.5, to 2.5, to 2.5, to 2.6, to 2.5, to 2.5, to 2.6, to 2.5, to 2.5, to 2.6, to 2.5, to 2.5, to 2.6, to 2.5, to 2.6, to 2.5, to 2.5, to 2.6, to 2.5, to 2.5, to 2.6, to 3.5, to 3.6, to 2.5, to 25, to 3.6, to 3.5, to 24, and to 94, to 28.5, to 29, respectively, to 3.6, to 2015; and to 16.5, to 20

The reasoning for the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) deleted "preliminary entry" in the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the addition of the judgment on the plaintiffs' arguments added at the trial as stated in paragraph (2). Thus, the court shall accept it as it is in accordance with the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, inasmuch as it is stated in the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination as to the plaintiffs' assertion added in the trial of the party

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The plaintiffs asserted that they could not choose the index adjustment method when they enter into the contract because they did not have any function to modify or present their opinions in addition to the plaintiffs' electronic signature, and they did not have any function to consult with the plaintiffs about the method of contract adjustment in advance.

B. Determination

In light of the following circumstances, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 and Eul evidence Nos. 8 through 10 (including each number number), comprehensively taking into account the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, ① contracts concluded by electronic document shall be subject to prior consultation between persons in charge of management to determine the specific contents of the contract through consultation on major contents of the contract, such as construction amount and construction period, but only signature shall be conducted in electronic form; ② The term "standard for application of price fluctuation" exists in the contract form prepared by the defendant including the contract of this case; ③ it is possible to separately state the contract in the contract if the other party expresses his intention to apply price fluctuation before the contract of this case; ④ In fact, when the other party expresses his intention to the contract of this case before the contract of this case or otherwise expresses his intention to apply price fluctuation to the defendant at the time of signing the contract with other companies, the plaintiffs' assertion that the above rate of price fluctuation in Seoul, Seoul, and Seoul, and the Do governor of the contract of this case can not be seen to have been reflected in the conclusion of the contract of this case.

3. Conclusion

All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed because they are without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in its conclusion, and the plaintiffs' claims expanded in the appeal and the court of first instance are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Seo Gyeong-sung (Presiding Judge)