Of the part of the lower judgment against the Defendant Busan Metropolitan City, it is due to the reduction of construction period or night and holiday work.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Judgment on the plaintiffs' grounds of appeal except the plaintiff FF corporation

A. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court deemed that the Plaintiffs and the Defendants agreed to have the rights and obligations under the instant construction contract against the Plaintiffs under the instant construction contract, and determined that the parties to the instant construction contract are not Defendant Republic of Korea but Defendant Busan.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the legal nature of a procurement contract and the interpretation of a disposal document, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal

B. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court determined that Defendant Busan Metropolitan City may reduce part of the contract amount according to the result of the Plaintiffs’ increase or decrease in the design of the portion of civil engineering works among the preferential construction works.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the interpretation of a disposal document and the burden of proof, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the grounds

C. As to the ground of appeal No. 3, the lower court determined that Defendant Busan Metropolitan City could pay only the remainder after confirming and settling the Plaintiffs’ actual payment of national health insurance premiums and national pension contributions when paying the Plaintiffs for completion of construction work under the instant construction contract.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the legal nature of a State contract, interpretation of a disposal document, and burden of proof.

2. Determination on Defendant Busan Metropolitan City’s grounds of appeal

A. As to the ground of appeal No. 1 (1)