All appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and the appeal shall be 1.

1. The grounds for admitting the judgment of the court of first instance are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the partial dismissal as follows, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary parts] Section 4 2- 5 of the first instance judgment, “after that,” the two to five of the first instance judgment.

“Around September 14, 2017; ① Defendant C paid KRW 30 million on August 14, 2017; KRW 30 million on September 28, 2017; KRW 95 million on October 11, 2017; ② Defendant D paid KRW 30 million on September 28, 2017; KRW 25 million on October 25, 2017; and ② Defendant D paid KRW 95 million on October 11, 2017; and KRW 25 million on October 25, 2017; and KRW 95 million on October 23, 2017.

“ ..........”

Part IV of the judgment of the first instance court "H, D, L, the Defendants, and K" in Section 2 of the Table No. 4 of the judgment of the first instance court "H, L, the Defendants and K shall be added to "H, the Defendants and K".

[Attachment 100 million won received in advance and the amount paid thereafter,] “The Defendants already exceeded the amount that the Defendants would have paid to K as the construction cost of the steel frame construction sector” in Section 9-2 of the first instance judgment. The Defendants succeeded to each advance payment receipt (KJ’s advance payment receipt) KRW 100 million.

The plaintiffs asserted to the effect that the above succession is null and void based on an unfair special agreement contrary to Article 3-4 (1) of the Subcontract Act. However, in light of the circumstances leading to the instant commercial construction contract, it is difficult to view that the succession of the pre-paid receipt amount of the pre-paid construction as above to be a contract term unfairly infringing or restricting his interests. Accordingly, the aforementioned assertion by the pre-paid plaintiffs is not accepted on different premise) and the amount of KRW 95 million paid until October 23, 2017 thereafter exceeds the amount of KRW 390,000 which the Defendants already paid to K as the construction cost of the steel construction sector (this is the situation prior to December 26, 2017 where the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to pay the construction cost of the instant commercial building, and the amount of KRW 390,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won under the second written agreement of the instant construction project.