1.The judgment of the first instance, including a claim expanded and reduced in this Court, shall be modified as follows:

A. Defendant.

1. The reasons for this Court’s acceptance of the judgment of the first instance are as follows, except for partial dismissal or deletion as follows, and thus, it is identical to the reasons for the judgment of the first instance. Accordingly, this Court shall accept it in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

▣ 제 1 심 판결문 제 4 면 표 아래 제 12 행 중 “ 피고들은 ”부터 제 16 행 까지를 다음과 같이 고쳐 쓴다.

“The Defendants are obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 45,976,412 (=644,685,00 won - 598,708,5888) in lieu of the repair of defects, KRW 21,541,976 in lieu of the repair of defects, KRW 233,780,00 in subrogation payment to the subcontractor companies, KRW 188,020,537 in delay, and KRW 489,318,925 in total, and delayed damages.

』 ▣ 제 1 심 판결문 제 4 면 표 아래 제 17 행과 제 18 행 사이에 다음과 같은 기재를 추가한다.

“The Government”

A. In order to confirm whether Defendant D is a joint contractor of the instant contract, the Plaintiff asserted that Defendant D is a joint contractor of the instant contract with the Defendant Company, and Defendant D merely affixed a signature and seal on the column of the contractor of the instant contract in order to confirm that Defendant D was partially responsible for the coordination of the terms and conditions of the instant contract, and that himself is not a joint contractor of the instant contract, and first, we examine whether Defendant D is a joint contractor of the instant contract.

In full view of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that Defendant D is a joint contractor for the instant contract with the Defendant Company, and the evidence submitted by Defendant C and D alone is insufficient to reverse the recognition. In full view of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that Defendant C and D are co-contractor for the instant contract, and the evidence presented by Defendant C and D alone is insufficient to reverse the recognition.

1) As long as a disposal document is recognized as having been authentic, the document may otherwise deny the probative value of the disposal document, unless there are special reasons to the contrary.