1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

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

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

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: Gap evidence submitted in the court of first instance and rejected each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 14- 21 (including each number), which is insufficient to recognize the plaintiffs' assertion, and the court's "this court" among the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance shall be "court of the court of first instance" and the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance are as stated in the part of the judgment of the court of first instance except for dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. Parts to be removed or added;

(a)the following shall be added between conduct 6 and 7 of the first instance judgment:

"No. The No. the No. the Settlement Clause itself means a contract itself, and its meaning is apparent. The Settlement Clause of this case provides that "The standards and procedures necessary for the review of ex post facto cost shall follow the Accounting Rules," and it cannot be known by the contract itself as it is based on what standards and methods it is, and thus its meaning cannot be recognized in light of its ambiguity."

B. In light of the fact that a contract including the instant settlement provision was made in line 21 and 9 of the 8th sentence of the first instance trial, it is difficult to view that the contract, including the instant settlement provision, was unfairly disadvantageous to the Plaintiffs. The witness B of the first instance trial directly visited the Defendant’s office and perused the service report during the period from July 24, 2012 to July 31, 2012, the representative of the Plaintiffs visited the Defendant’s office, and the Plaintiff A’s CB had the service report and did not return to the present day.

In light of the fact that “the Defendant testified to the effect that it had followed the procedure under Article 89(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Contract Act by setting the standards and procedures necessary for ex post facto review of costs before entering into the instant contract and allowing the Plaintiffs to peruse them.

"Ero-friendly".

(c)the following shall be added between conduct 15 and 16 of the first instance judgment:

. .. ......