1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the cases being cited or added in accordance with paragraph (2) below. Thus, it is citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. In the part of the court of first instance, “Seosan Integrated Construction Co., Ltd., Ltd.,” written or added, No. 5 of the court of first instance, shall be added to “Plaintiffs”.

The fifth and fifth of the judgment of the first instance court "the head of the construction management authority and the supervisor of the instant construction project" shall be appointed as "the head of the construction management authority and the supervisor of the instant construction project".

The 7th written judgment of the first instance court " was supplied" and it was written by "establishment".

Part 17 of the Decision of the first instance court "8.15" shall be amended to "8.31."

The term "metallics, which are government-funded materials necessary for creative construction," in Forms 5 through 6 of the 11th judgment of the first instance court, shall be written with "the metal windows, which are government-funded materials necessary for creative construction," "the metal windows, which are government-funded materials necessary for creative construction."

The following shall be added to the 11th sentence of the first instance court, following the 9th sentence:

“The Defendant alleged that the instant construction was delayed due to the delay in the rooftop part of the Plaintiff Company due to the causes attributable to the Plaintiff Company, and that there was no delay in the supply of government supply materials. However, in full view of the overall purport of Gap’s evidence Nos. 113, 114, 115, 117, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 11 and 25, witness C and witness H of the first instance trial, the Plaintiff Company’s rooftop partic construction was somewhat delayed due to the Defendant’s change of design, but it is possible for the Plaintiff Company to concurrently carry out the rooftop part of the rooftop part project and the outer part of the outer part, and in fact, it is possible for the Plaintiff Company to concurrently carry out the steering part together with the rooftop part of the Plaintiff Company, only after the design of the instant school was finalized on August 17, 2015 by the Defendant.