1. The defendant's appeal against the plaintiffs and the request for return of provisional payment are all dismissed.

2...

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the first instance court’s reasoning, except for the parts which are dismissed or added as stated in the second instance court’s decision, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The phrase “B” in Section 6 of the judgment of the first instance court, which is dismissed or added, shall be changed to “B”.

Part 5 of the judgment of the first instance court shall be prepared in accordance with the 8th sentence, and the "child" shall be prepared.

On the 6th judgment of the first instance court, the "civil engineering works" in the 14th judgment shall be considered as "civil engineering works area".

On the 7th of the judgment of the first instance court, the "detailed statement" in the 10th of the judgment shall be read as the "detailed statement" in the calculation sheet.

In the 8th judgment of the first instance court, the "Plaintiff" in the 19th judgment shall be deemed to be "Plaintiffs".

On the 8th judgment of the first instance court, "the plaintiff" in the 21st judgment is "the plaintiff," and "the plaintiff" is "the plaintiff," respectively.

"23" shall be added to "20" next to "20" in Part 9 of the decision of the first instance.

Part 9 of the decision of the court of first instance shall be deleted from the " machine, apparatus, and device" in Part 11.

The following shall be added to the 10th sentence of the first instance court, the 10th sentence “not” of the 10th sentence.

The Defendant asserts that the instant construction contract is concluded by the method of design and construction package deal tender, so the Plaintiffs have a duty to design and construct civil engineering fields so that the railroad functions specified in the bidding guide document of this case can be performed smoothly. Since the disaster prevention facilities annexed to tunnels are essential for the normal operation of the facilities necessary for the smooth performance of railroad functions, electricity supply devices are essential. Thus, the Plaintiffs asserted that the construction work of electrical equipment should have been built by reflecting them in the tunnel design even if the construction work does not specify in the scope of the construction contract in

The contractor's obligation to execute the contract in excess of the scope of construction stipulated in the contract, on the ground that the contractor entered into the contract by means of a package deal design and construction project.