1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasons for the acceptance by the court of first instance are as follows, and the same is the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal or addition of determination as follows. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

A. The second 10-party 10 of the judgment of the first instance is dismissed as “A” corporation (hereinafter “A”), and each “Plaintiff” up to 3-party 9 shall be dismissed as “A” respectively.

B. The following is added under the third list of the judgment of the first instance.

D. “A was decided to commence the rehabilitation procedure on April 4, 2018, when the instant lawsuit was pending, by the Changwon District Court 2018 Ma10012, and the Plaintiff, a representative director of A, was appointed as a custodian. Since then, the Plaintiff taken over the instant litigation procedure (hereinafter referred to as “A and the Plaintiff are collectively referred to as “Plaintiff”).

C. Following the third page of the judgment of the court of first instance, “Evidence A 1 through 7” shall be deemed as “Evidence A 1 through 7, and 10.”

3. Additional determination

A. The construction work of this case for which the Plaintiff asserted that the construction work of this case was contracted to the Plaintiff was set at a low price without any basis, and thus it was impossible to perform from the beginning.

As a result, the Defendant forced the Plaintiff to perform the instant construction work without adjusting the amount in violation of Article 22(5)1, 3, and 5 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry.

In addition, the defendant did not pay the price for the plaintiff according to his gender.

Therefore, the discontinuance of the construction project of this case is due to the reasons attributable to the defendant, and it cannot be deemed that the construction project of this case was discontinued due to the plaintiff's causes attributable to the defendant.

B. In full view of all the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 11 through 16 submitted by the plaintiff in this court, the construction cost under the instant construction contract was set lower to the extent that the execution of the instant construction project is impossible, even if the construction cost under the instant construction contract

Article 22 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry.