1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant shall be revoked.

The plaintiffs' primary claim and objection against the above cancellation.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this part of the underlying facts is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the cases of either adding or adding some parts as follows, and therefore, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

An abbreviationd name established in the judgment of the first instance is also used below the same.

[Supplementary or supplementary parts] Part 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance, "O. 8, 2013" was added to "O. 8, 2003. 8."

On the 6th page of the judgment of the first instance, the term "the first amendment contract" in column (contract) in column (contract) shall be used as "the first amendment" and "the second amendment contract" in the form of "the second amendment", respectively, and "the first amendment from December 31, 2003 to October 10 to "the second amendment" in the total construction period column of the general contract shall be respectively dismissed.

From the last 7th of the judgment of the first instance to the third th h h h h h h h h h h.

Article 23 Section A(6) of the General Conditions of the Construction Contract (Public Notice of September 23, 2008, 2008, hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff C") is included in Article 29 as the representative of the instant joint supply and demand organization, and the construction period has been extended to the Defendant on September 23, 2008, but it appears to be a clerical error under Article 23.

On September 14, 2009, a public document was sent to the effect that the request for the adjustment of the contract amount due to the extension of the air was made, and on September 14, 2009, “The second request for the adjustment of the contract amount due to the extension of the air was made without any separate answer.” On October 27, 2010 and September 14, 2012, a public document was sent to the effect that “The second request for the adjustment of the contract amount due to the extension of the air has not been made, but there was no separate answer.”

2. After that, on June 26, 2013, the Plaintiff C, as the representative of the instant joint contractors, requested the re-determination of the contract amount of KRW 3,485,018,523 as a result of the first change into “from October 7, 2003 to October 7, 2008” in “from October 7, 2003 to “from September 30, 201,” and the total construction period under the first contract to the Defendant.