1. All appeals by the plaintiffs and the defendant against the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be individually counted.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the first instance court’s reasoning, except for the addition or dismissal as stated in paragraph (2) below. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The addition or height of the part of the judgment of the court of first instance is the Plaintiff’s “effective Engineering” in each of the 3th, 11th, and 8th, 12th and 12th of the judgment of the court of first instance.

The following shall be added to the 10th sentence of the first instance court and the 18th sentence:

Next, the Plaintiffs did not agree that the amount included in the value-added tax at the time of concluding the instant construction contract with the Defendant is the contract amount, which is the basis for calculating liquidated damages, and the liquidated damages do not constitute the subject of taxation as stipulated in the Value-Added Tax Act. Therefore, the Plaintiffs asserted that the value-added tax should be excluded from the contract

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that there was an agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendant on the determination of pure supply price except value-added tax as the contract price which is the basis for calculating liquidated damages. Rather, according to the evidence No. 5 and the evidence No. 10-1 of the construction contract, Article 25(1) of the General Conditions of the construction contract provides that liquidated damages shall be calculated by multiplying the liquidated damages by the contract price (the annual contract price in the case of a long-term continuing construction contract) as the contract price (the annual contract price in the case of a long-term continuing construction contract) for each number of delayed days. The fourth construction contract of this case states "1,406,00,000 won" and "0.1% of the liquidated damages rate: the contract price under the construction contract of this case is an amount which includes value-added tax. In full view of the above facts, the contract price under the construction contract of this case is the amount which is the basis for calculating liquidated damages as the contract price in the construction contract of this case.