1. Revocation of the first instance judgment. A.

The primary defendant Incheon Metropolitan City is 1,720,036,822 won and this shall apply to the plaintiffs.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance regarding the instant case is as follows, except for modification, addition, and deletion as follows, and thus, it is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The fourth five pages of the judgment of the first instance shall be amended to “Defendant Republic of Korea” to “public official in charge of the Public Procurement Service,” and the fifth two pages “Defendant Republic of Korea” to “Defendant Incheon City.”

The 4th 19th 19th 19th 201 amendment to " January 30, 201".

The 5th written judgment of the first instance is amended, and the following "(hereinafter referred to as "each amendment contract of this case") is added."

The part of "A. judgment" in the 6th to 8th judgment of the first instance shall be amended as follows:

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence cited prior to judgment and the purport of the statement and the entire argument of the evidence No. 6 to No. 15, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant Incheon City bears the obligation to pay the construction cost (including indirect expenses) under the instant construction contract. ① The instant construction contract was concluded by Defendant Incheon City, a procuring entity, pursuant to Article 15(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Procurement Act of 2009, requesting the Public Procurement Service, a procuring entity, to enter into a contract with the Public Procurement Service, a procuring entity under the Defendant’s control of the Republic of Korea, and the Plaintiffs were well aware of such circumstances (a procuring entity is the Defendant Incheon City.)

2) The contract party is reasonable to deem that the contract party is the plaintiffs and the defendant Incheon City (it can be deemed that the Government Procurement Service entered into a contract on behalf of the defendant Incheon City.

It is reasonable to view that an end-user institution, a third party, bears the obligation to pay the price, considering the characteristics of the conclusion of the contract even if it is a contract for a third party.

3) However, it is difficult to see that both the plaintiffs and the defendants suffered from losses in mind (the plaintiff also filed the lawsuit in this case by viewing the defendant Incheon City as the primary defendant.

(2) 209.