1. The part of the judgment of the first instance against the Defendants is modified by the amendment of the claim in this court as follows.

1. The evidence submitted in the first instance court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is justified even if the defendants' claims were examined in addition to this court's claims.

The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, and it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the dismissal or addition as set forth in the judgment of the first instance.

[Supplementary or added parts] The 4th 15th 15th 15 co-defendants, “Defendant A” (hereinafter “Co-Defendant A of the first instance trial”) was used as “Defendant A and Co-Defendant A of the first instance trial,” and “The other co-defendant A of the first instance judgment,” and “the other co-defendant A of the first instance trial.”

Defendant C (Joint Demand and Supply Representative) was used as Defendant C Co., Ltd. (Co-Defendant Co., Ltd.; hereinafter “Co-Defendant C”) and Defendant B (Co-Payment Representative); hereinafter “Co-Defendant B”) as Defendant B Co., Ltd. (Co-Defendant B; hereinafter “Defendant B”), and the “Defendant A” in the first instance judgment was entirely replaced with “Co-Defendant A of the first instance trial.”

7 The Act on Contracts to Which the State is a Party (hereinafter referred to as the “State Contract Act”) shall be amended into four parts below the 7th page.

The primary claim for damages was deleted from the 8th 9th 9th '(1)', the 10th '10th 'A' to the 10th 'A', the 14th 'B' to the 10th '2th 'B', and the 9th 7th '2th 'B' to the 3th 'B' to the 11th 13th 'B' to the 18th 'B'. The 5th 'The calculation method of the Plaintiff's claim for limitation on liability for damages cannot be absolutely reasonable, and the interests of the Defendants due to the instant collaborative act are not significant, and the 14th 'B' to the 18th 'B' to the 13th 'B' to the 18th 'B