The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, this part of the ground of appeal is to the purport that the lower court did not render any determination on the assertion that the party to the instant construction contract was not the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; Defendant hereinafter the same) but the Defendant Gyeong-do.

However, according to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the reasoning of the first instance judgment cited by the lower court, the lower court determined that Defendant Korea is a party to the instant construction contract, and that Defendant Gyeong-do was merely an agent for the instant construction project delegated by the Defendant Republic of Korea, and thus cannot be deemed a party. Therefore, the lower court did not err by omitting the judgment, contrary

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below as to the second ground of appeal, the first instance court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the first instance court changed the provisions of the total successful bid ratio of the special specifications into the application of the deemed successful bid ratio, not the provisional contract to settle the construction cost by applying the entire successful bid ratio according to the result of the Public Procurement Service’s response, on the part of the change to dredging soil transport of the instant construction project, on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles regarding the interpretation of legal acts or by exceeding the bounds of the principle

3. As to the ground of appeal No. 3, this part of the ground of appeal is with respect to the lower court’s assumptive judgment, and its propriety does not affect the judgment, and thus, it cannot be accepted without

4. The reasoning of the lower judgment on the fourth ground of appeal is recorded.