1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the Defendants shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be revoked.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the basic facts are stated in Paragraph 1 of this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance: Provided, That each "Plaintiff" in front of the public shipping company, a joint plaintiff in the court of first instance, shall be deleted, and each "Plaintiff Co., Ltd." shall be dismissed to "Plaintiff Co., Ltd.".

Therefore, it is accepted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The Plaintiff’s sand extraction leads to the Plaintiff’s damage equivalent to the increase in the construction cost by changing the sand gathering area inevitably into the root sea area and raising the unit price due to the Plaintiff’s change in the construction cost, and the Defendants are jointly liable for compensation to the Plaintiff, on the ground that the Plaintiff and the public sea transport (hereinafter “the Plaintiff”) were not able to take sand due to legal and administrative technical reasons in the area permitted by the Defendants, and the Plaintiff and the public sea transport (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) were not able to take sand from the area permitted by the Defendants on the grounds that the sand gathering area was inevitably changed into the coastal sea area.

B. The Defendants 1) According to the instant agreement, in the event that the amount of sand to be collected by the Plaintiff’s side falls short of the quantity of sand to be collected due to the Defendants’ sand extraction, the Defendants are liable to compensate for damages. In the waterway 3, there still remains more sand than the necessary quantity to the Plaintiff’s side. The Plaintiff’s side did not have attempted to collect sand at all at the same time or in preference to the Defendants in accordance with the instant agreement, and the change of the Plaintiff’s sand gathering place on the part of the Plaintiff was due to the field of the waterway 3 zones, and is irrelevant to the Defendants’ sand gathering. Accordingly, there is no causation between the Defendants’ sand gathering and the damage caused by the increase in the unit cost of construction on the part of the Plaintiff. 2).