2. After an appeal is filed.

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

A. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

B. Under the overall contract for a long-term continuing contract that causes a preliminary claim, the term “total construction period” does not have a binding force that generates a conclusive right and duty, and plays a provisional role as a provisional standard. However, the total construction period is not only conclusive with regard to the unit contract price under the overall contract determined based on the total construction period, but also includes the contents of the contract, which shall be stated in the contract by the number. Thus, in cases where a change occurs in the standard that serves as the premise for the determination of unit contract price due to the progress of construction after the total construction period, or where a change occurs in the “total construction period” as the contents of the contract, it constitutes “other modification of the terms of contract” as stipulated in Article 66 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Contracts to Which the State Is a Party (hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the State Contracts Act”) and Article 23(1) of the General Conditions of the Construction Contract, and the Plaintiffs have the obligation to adjust the contract price, and thus

The obligation to pay the additional cost of indirect construction for 1,186 days, the total construction period of which has been extended, as described in paragraph (1) and damages for delay.

C. The first issue of whether there is a change in the contents of a contract, such as construction period, should be determined on the basis of a multiple-dimensional contract, even if the contract is not binding on a long-term continuing construction contract.