1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The defendant bears the total costs of the lawsuit after the appeal.

purport, purport, and.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 20, 2015, Plaintiff A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) entered into a working design service agreement (service cost of KRW 59,376,400) with the Defendant, the contracting authority, “C Corporation (hereinafter “instant construction”)” and submitted the working design drawings to the Defendant, taking the Plaintiff B as a responsible technician around July 2015.

(hereinafter “instant design service”). (b)

Plaintiff

The specifications of the portion of metal construction submitted by the company did not state any material for the “defensing construction”. The unit price comparison table of “material name synthetic wood, unit M, material cost of 32,00 won (water price data of 132)” provides that “the price per day shall be KRW 26,000 (unit price of 32,00),” “the total cost of material cost of KRW 861,197,000 (including mold),” “the cost of installation of a material name embankment (including mold), material cost of 861,197,” and “the cost of construction cost of 20,000 won (including mold),” “the cost of construction cost of 10,000 won (including mold), quantity of 44,37,892,68 won (unit price of 861,197)” and “the cost of construction work” of this case shall be deemed to be inconsistent with the design drawings of this case (hereinafter referred to as “the design specifications of this case”) and specifications of this case.

Accordingly, on March 27, 2017, the Defendant: (a) Article 53(1) of the Construction Technology Promotion Act; (b) Article 87(5) [Attached Table 8] of the former Enforcement Decree of the Construction Technology Promotion Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 29918, Jun. 25, 2019; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree”); and (c) Article 87(5) [Attachment 8] of the former Enforcement Decree

5. Standards for the measurement of penalty points;

(c) it;