1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows. The part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows. The plaintiffs’ new assertion in the appellate court is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for addition of the judgment as to the newly asserted part in the appellate court under paragraph (2) above. Thus, it is accepted by the main sentence

The second and fifth written judgment of the court of first instance (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff B”) shall be “Plaintiff B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff B”)” to “Plaintiff B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff B”) on December 14, 2017, and E Co., Ltd. took over the instant litigation proceedings on December 20, 2017; hereinafter the same shall not apply to Plaintiff B Co., Ltd. and E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff B”).”

The ls AT of the 4th, 8, 12, and 15th, of the first instance judgment, is used as “LTSA”, and the 23th, 15th, 23th, 23th, 23th, as “LTSA.”

The 6th sentence of the first instance judgment "3,343,00 won" in the 5th sentence shall be 3,232,000 won.

The 7th written judgment of the court of first instance in the 7th written judgment of the court of first instance shall be subject to the second written judgment with "second written".

No. 10 of the judgment of the court of first instance (hereinafter referred to as "facility contractor") shall be added to "facility contract".

Part 14, the 16th to 20th of the first instance judgment, shall be added as follows.

In light of the above circumstances, even if the actual output in the year 2015 falls short of 2.5 MW, this appears to have occurred due to the suspension of the defendant's service payment due to the suspension of the defendant's service payment due to the failure to provide fuel cell management service, rather than due to the defect in the fuel cell itself. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the defendant is responsible for the above incomplete performance." The part of the judgment of the court of first instance, 15, 18, 16, 18, and 18, 2015, is deleted, and the part of the claim for damages equivalent to the amount of business loss in the year 2015,