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 reasons for this Court’s acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows: (a) the Plaintiffs’ assertion added to or emphasized again by this court is the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except as otherwise determined in paragraph (2) below; and (b) such assertion is cited by the main text of

2. Additional or supplementary judgment

A. The plaintiffs asserted that the construction period of the fourth-minute contract of this case was extended due to the reasons attributable to the defendant, and that the construction period was extended due to the reasons attributable to the defendant. The plaintiffs asserted that the construction period was extended due to the reasons attributable to the defendant.

The joint venture of this case and the Defendant changed the construction completion period from April 15, 2016 to May 31, 2016, from April 15, 2016 to May 31, 2016 are as seen earlier. According to the purport of each of the evidence Nos. 19 and Nos. 12 and 13 (including serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and all of the pleadings, the instant joint venture of this case and the Defendant reflects the theory of obstacles on the ground that there is any obstacle to the location of installation, such as the Seongbuk Dam, etc. on May 23, 2016, and that the construction of the Seongbuk Dam, etc. is impossible, the total contract price of which was 159,072,00 won, including the facilities of obstacles due to the above contract amendment, and the construction completion period following the said contract amendment can be acknowledged as having not been changed from May 31, 2016.

According to the above facts, the total contract amount was reduced due to the amendment of the contract, including removal of obstacles, etc., made on or around May 23, 2016 between the joint contractor and the Defendant, and the completion period was not changed on May 31, 2016. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiffs’ objection is irrelevant to the extension of the construction period of the fourth-minute contract among the instant contract.

The above assertion by the plaintiffs is without merit.

B. In addition, the Plaintiffs shall be polymar.