1. All appeals against the principal lawsuit and counterclaims filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and Defendant C’s appeal against the principal lawsuit.

1. The court's explanation of this case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing this case as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

However, with respect to the application for the return of provisional payments by Defendant B, part of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be written as follows, and the decision as to the application for the return of provisional payments by Defendant B shall be added.

[Supplementary part] The third part of the judgment of the court of first instance is "each subdivision is divided, and again on April 23, 2015 is divided, and D 511 square meters is divided, and it is again divided on April 23, 2015."

The 6th sentence of the first instance court's second sentence shall be applied with "satisfy submitted" as "satfying".

Part 8 of the decision of the court of first instance (attached Form 2) of the 10th of the decision of the court of first instance shall be changed to "attached Form 2".

Part 10 of the 13th judgment of the first instance court was "in the name of the plaintiff or the defendants" and "in the name of the plaintiff or the defendants".

The 5th written judgment of the first instance court "shall be made to the Jinsung Design Corporation" in the 5th written judgment of the first instance, "the Jinsung Civil Engineering".

"2,000,000" in 13th order in the 20th order of the court of first instance shall be applied to "20,000,000".

2. Determination as to Defendant B’s motion for the return of provisional payment

A. On February 9, 2018, Defendant B paid a sum of KRW 295,345,204 to the Plaintiff as the principal and damages for delay ordered by the first instance judgment. The first instance judgment is an unlawful judgment and must be revoked in the first instance judgment. As such, the Plaintiff should refund the said KRW 295,345,204 as the provisional payment and damages for delay to the Defendant B.

B. The application for the return of provisional payment by Defendant B is premised on the cancellation of part of the part against Defendant B in the judgment of the court of first instance at the trial. Since there is no part to be revoked in the trial of the court of first instance, the application for the return of provisional payment by Defendant B is without merit without any need to further examine.

3. If so, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and Defendant B’s principal lawsuit and the judgment of the court of first instance.