1. The appeal against the part of the claim for construction cost among the principal claim filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and this Court.

1. The scope of this Court’s trial at the first instance trial against the Defendant, ① under the premise that the Plaintiff A is a contracting party, Plaintiff B’s claim for construction cost is consolidated with the premise that the Plaintiff B is a contracting party, and Plaintiff B’s claim for construction cost. ② Plaintiff B joined the above claim for construction cost and sought payment against the Defendant.

On the other hand, the defendant filed a counterclaim against the plaintiffs for compensation for damages caused by joint tort.

The first instance court accepted the plaintiff A's claim for construction cost and the plaintiff B's claim for wages, and dismissed the defendant's counterclaim.

Accordingly, the defendant appealed only to the claim for construction cost and counterclaim in the principal lawsuit of the judgment of the first instance, and the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the above part.

2. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing this in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this part of the claim is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the modification or the addition of the following determination following the last reduction of the judgment of the court of first instance at the end of the sixth decision, and therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Revision] The part of the first instance court Decision No. 6, No. 11, “Plaintiff A” means “Plaintiff A through Plaintiff B.”

[Supplementary statement] Further, the defendant asserts that even if the construction contract was concluded between the plaintiff A and the defendant, the above construction contract violates Article 29 (3) of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, and thus null and void, or that, in light of the content of the contract, the fixed construction cost shall be reduced according to the agreement on reduction of construction cost between the defendant and the original contractor.

As seen later, a counterclaim.