1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the parts used or added by the court of first instance as follows. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary part] The 8th of the first instance court's 8th of the 8th court's 17th to 9th of the 9th court's decision shall be followed as follows.

1) Defendant C did not fail to comply with the instant subcontract, and even if it did not comply with the contract, there were justifiable grounds for non-performance as a basis for the right of defense of apprehensions, and as well as the involvement in the act of counter-performance of construction in the nonperformance, it cannot be deemed that the insured event occurred. 2) The increased construction cost of KRW 904,50,000 in concluding the instant remaining construction contract cannot be deemed as the increased construction cost within a reasonable scope, and thus, it is unreasonable to recognize it as the amount of damages for the remaining construction

3) As the instant subcontract has been terminated, Defendant C has a claim equivalent to KRW 802,485,424 with respect to the payment of the construction price and the damages arising from the termination of the contract for the construction in South Yong Britain, and offset the said claim by the automatic claim against the damage liability for the construction in South Young Britain with the automatic claim. Defendant South Yong Young Construction in Section 21 of the judgment of the first instance has been awarded “Defendant C” in Section 12 of the judgment of the first instance. “A claim for the unpaid construction price” in Section 13 of the judgment of the first instance has been filed with “a claim for the unpaid construction price and its corresponding damage claim” in Section 6 of the judgment of the first instance. [In addition, the addition is subsequent to the 10th judgment of the first instance court, the following is added.

In addition, the Defendants did not pay the payment for the completed portion every month under the instant subcontract even though it did not pay the payment for the completed portion, and the construction cost for the portion that Defendant C actually performed, including the portion of performing the care work from March 26, 2012 before the said subcontract was concluded.