1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 31, 2013, the Plaintiffs and the Defendant-related Plaintiff A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff Co., Ltd”) and C architect offices entered into a design service contract with the Public Procurement Service for the new construction of D Middle School Teachers (hereinafter “instant teachers”) under a named name that the Defendant ordered (hereinafter “instant construction”) (hereinafter “instant construction”), and the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. is a design technician who is the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. and the representative director of the Plaintiff Co., Ltd., and the C architect office is a design technician who performed the said design service contract.

B. According to the basic plan of the construction project of this case, the stairs (the stairs-4; hereinafter “instant 4 stairs”) of the lecture hall among the teachers of this case was originally planned as outdoor stairs.

However, according to the school's changing the above stairs to indoor stairs, and requesting the plaintiffs to additionally create one indoor stairs on the other side, the plaintiffs changed the stairs of this case to indoor stairs, added stairs (referred to as "the stairs of this case"; hereinafter referred to as "each of the stairs of this case") in the other space, and the stairs of this case are referred to as "each of the stairs of this case" as "each of the stairs of this case". On March 10, 2014, the plaintiffs supplied the design documents (hereinafter referred to as "design documents of this case") to the defendant on March 10, 2014.

C. On January 28, 2015, while the instant construction was being carried out in accordance with the instant design plan that changes into the cadastral records of supervision and the outdoor stairs, it pointed out that the h&D comprehensive architectural office, a supervisory company, h&D comprehensive architectural firm (hereinafter “h&D supervisory company”), did not meet the minimum flight range (150 cm) stipulated in Article 15(2)2 of the Rules on the Standards for Evacuation and Fire Prevention, Etc. of Buildings (hereinafter “Rules”).

Accordingly, on February 10, 2015, the Plaintiffs are Defendant, Nonparty supervision company, and Nonparty supervision company.