1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The defendant's motion to return provisional payments shall be dismissed.

3...

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the facts of recognition are the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for partial dismissal as follows. Thus, this part of the reasoning is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

Part 2 of the Decision of the first instance court, Part 16 through 3 (A)(hereinafter referred to as "A") shall be as follows.

A. (1) The Defendant, a quasi-governmental institution, established for the purpose of constructing and managing D facilities under the C Public Corporation Act, was a design and a package deal tender for the construction work of eight sections (hereinafter “the instant construction work”) among the “E construction projects” on August 3, 2004.

J M MHH K2) The Plaintiffs participated in the said bidding by organizing a joint supply and demand organization with the Plaintiff A and the share ratio as Plaintiff 6 (Plaintiff A):4 (Plaintiff B). On March 2005, the preliminary review of the basic design documents submitted around March 2005, part of the Frith among the instant construction works (hereinafter “instant section”).

The following alternative routes can be improved after analyzing the problems about the basic plan route. The plaintiffs suggested the alternative route 1 as the basic design. 3) The basic plan prepared by the defendant was to construct earth and sand banking (construction method of building D by piling up soil and gravel) in the instant section.

On the other hand, among the three alternative routes indicated by the plaintiffs' three alternative routes of the above basic design, the white part is a bridge installation section, and the alternative two routes that overlap similar to the above sections are also constructed by earth and sand filling in the above sections. The alternative routes 1 and 3 are considerably different from the above sections in this case, and the above routes are irrelevant to the above sections in this case.

4. The defendant on April 7, 2005, after deliberation of basic plans, shall be the plaintiffs of the construction of this case.