1. The defendant's appeal is all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

3. The Defendant’s September 2, 2016 to the Plaintiffs.

1. The reasons for the admitting this case by the court of first instance are as follows, and the reasons for the admitting this case are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the submission of part of the judgment of the court of first instance or the addition of some contents as follows. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act

(hereinafter the meaning of the abbreviationd language used in this context is the same as the judgment of the first instance). After the 17th largest of the 3th page, the term "(Article 82(1) of the Construction Technology Promotion Act and Article 115(2)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the authority of the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport on the suspension of business of construction engineers shall be delegated to the head of the Regional Construction

“The construction was completed on March 24, 2016,” of the 6th 5-6 parallels, “The construction was completed on March 29, 2016,” to which the Plaintiffs ordered the subcontractor to complete the painting construction work inside G timbering and H wooding, and in the case of the electric field installation works, the installation of the electric field was completed on March 24, 2016.”

The 7th page "8.28 km" is called "8.28 km".

The plaintiff in the 8th 19-20th 19-20th am " has completed, as seen above, the plaintiffs endeavored to do so, such as the plaintiffs' own expenses."

The "Standards for Review of Construction Project Management Method and Guidelines for Performance of Duties" in Part 1 below the 15th Schedule shall be added "(Public Notice of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport No. 2015-473)."

2. As such, the judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable, and all of the appeals by the defendant are dismissed as it is without merit, and according to the records of this case, it is recognized that the validity of the disposition of this case requires urgent measures to prevent irrecoverable damage to the plaintiffs, and there is no other circumstance to deem that the suspension of its validity is likely to seriously affect public welfare. Thus, the disposition of this case by its own authority until the judgment of this case becomes final and conclusive.