All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the reasoning of the first instance judgment cited by the lower court as to the ground of appeal No. 1, based on the facts and circumstances stated in its reasoning, the lower court rejected the Plaintiffs’ assertion that unpaid contract price should be calculated based on the contractual unit price, on the grounds that it is difficult to view that the contract was terminated in the middle of the construction contract between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant Republic of Korea, based on the contractual unit price based on the calculation method on the calculation method of the construction cost for the term portion, and upheld the first instance judgment that calculated the construction cost for the term portion by applying the agreed construction cost ratio to the construction cost incurred for the term portion and the construction cost incurred for the unconstruction

In light of the relevant legal principles and the evidence admitted by the court below, the above measures of the court below are just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the calculation basis and method

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3 and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as cited by the court of first instance, as long as the net construction cost required when completing the construction of the Plaintiffs’ incomplete portion calculated based on the appraisal result of the court of first instance exceeds the construction cost for the Plaintiffs’ incomplete portion based on the construction contract of this case, even if the Plaintiffs completed the construction under the construction contract of this case, it is difficult to conclude that there exists a benefit that the Plaintiffs may gain. Meanwhile, the construction contract of