1. The Plaintiff’s appeal against the Defendants and the appeal against the Plaintiff by Defendant A, B, and E Union.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited the same reasoning as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for “a supplementary or supplementary part” under the following, and thus, the same is acceptable pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Part 11 added or added " May 25, 2007" shall be deemed to be " May 12, 2010"; " December 30, 2008" shall be deemed to be " June 15, 2010"; " July 30, 2007" in 12 pages shall be deemed to be " May 12, 2010"; and " July 30, 2007" in 12 pages shall be deemed to be " July 30, 2007"; and " July 30, 2007" in 12 pages shall be deemed to be " November 18, 2010".

The following shall be added between the 20th of the judgment of the first instance and the 14th of the table:

The contractor asserts that the value-added tax amount equivalent to the value-added tax should be excluded from the total amount of KRW 692,910,579, among the above 692,910,579. Where the contractor requires the repair of defects due to the contractor’s defect in the construction work, the contractor is not entitled to receive the deduction or refund of the value-added tax required for the repair of defects from his/her own output tax amount. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the contractor is not entitled to claim damages equivalent to the value-added tax amount from the contractor. However, if the contractor is the contractor and the value-added tax required for the repair of defects falls under “the input tax amount related to the duty-free project” under Article 39(1)7 of the Value-Added Tax Act and cannot be deducted or refunded from his/her own output tax amount, the contractor is substantially liable to compensate the contractor for damages equivalent to the value-added tax (Supreme Court Decision 2015Da218570 Decided December 10, 2015).