1. All appeals against the plaintiffs in Bupyeong-si are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. In the first instance trial, the Plaintiffs filed a claim for the payment of the contract amount to be adjusted due to the extension of the construction period with the primary Defendant and the Defendant Republic of Korea as the primary Defendant.

On the other hand, the court of first instance rejected the claim against the defendant's Republic of Korea on the part of the claim for the adjustment of the contract amount against the defendant Seocheon-si.

In regard to this, even though Defendantbucheon-si only appealed, if one of the primary co-litigants and the conjunctive co-litigants files an appeal in a subjective and preliminary co-litigation, the final and conclusive part of the claim concerning other co-litigants shall be prevented, and the appeal shall be subject to adjudication by the appellate court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Du1765, Mar. 27, 2008). In such a case, the subject of adjudication on the appeal shall be determined by considering the need for the unity of conclusion between the primary and preliminary co-litigants and their other parties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da4355, Feb. 24, 2011). Thus, the scope of adjudication by this court was transferred to the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Republic of Korea and became the subject of adjudication by this court.

2. The grounds for appeal in the case of Defendant Non-Acheon-si, which cited the judgment of the court of first instance, are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and decision of the court of first instance are justified even if each evidence submitted to this court was presented to this court.

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

3. Conclusion, the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant Seocheon-si are justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims against the defendant Seocheon-si and the claims against the defendant Korea shall be dismissed, respectively, as there is no ground. The judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and thus, the appeal against this is filed by the defendant Seocheon-si.