1. The Defendant’s KRW 133,942,807 to the Plaintiffs and the following: 6% per annum from April 30, 2016 to September 27, 2017.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 25, 2012, the Defendant awarded a contract to the Plaintiffs for the construction work to create “F” in the Eth unit in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun (hereinafter “instant construction work”).

On December 17, 2014, the Plaintiffs and the Defendant concluded a contract to change the construction amount to KRW 11,878,100,000 after several changes.

B. After completing the instant construction work, the Plaintiffs claimed KRW 688,192,807 for additional construction costs to the Defendant on July 23, 2015, but the Defendant rejected such claim and paid only KRW 11,878,100,000 as the contract price under the contract until July 29, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion [the plaintiff's claim amount details] No. 12,750,000 won for reconstruction costs due to the reduction in the area of GTB of the GTB of the GTB of the GTB of the GTB, 13,942,807 won for reconstruction costs due to the reduction in the area of the GTB of the GTB of the GTB of the golf course C, 170,037,037,376 won for temporary electric installation costs of the D's D's temporary installation costs of KRW 36,465,00 for E's civil petition settlement costs of KRW 12,750,00 for noise civil petition of KRW 10,750,00 for soil and sand, and KRW 2,750,195,183 for the construction of the instant case, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiffs a total of KRW 740,195,183 for delay damages.

3. Determination

A. Expenses (A) for reconstruction due to a sculping (A): (a) around August 2014, when the Plaintiffs were asserting the parties to the instant construction project, the Plaintiffs paid 387,000,000 won for reconstruction costs due to the following: (b) around August 2014, when the construction was in progress, on the shores or on the shores of the floor, or on the shores or Saturdays at the construction site due to a typhoon and a concentrated heavy rain.

In order to prevent earth erosion from being lost on the ground of cutting and banking level, the Plaintiffs’ construction method is in the public law to cover the Columine on the slope of the “Column Net method” and at the same time to prevent soil erosion.