1. All appeals by the Defendants and the motion for return of provisional payment by Defendant B Co., Ltd. are dismissed.

2. The appeal costs.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited this case is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following cases, and thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts in height:

A. From 13th of the judgment of the court of first instance to 16th to 14th of the appeal are as follows.

According to the evidence evidence evidence No. 11 submitted by the Defendants, the equal repair method is divided into the surface treatment method and injecting method. The former is “cleaning and terminating the charging process, etc. of the surface of concrete surface to be cleaned” (in the case of progress rupture, tapes with a width of 10 to 15 meters are installed along the rupture line at the surfaceing stage, and 30 to 50 meters wide centering on tapes are added, 10 to 2 to 4m high in thickness and 3m high in rupture, 10 to 3m high in rupture construction method. The latter is difficult to view that there is lack of evidence of the above 10m rupture or 10m in rupture construction method to be applied to the average 3m rupture and 1m in rupture construction method around the rupture unit (this case’s rupture construction method). Meanwhile, it is difficult to view that there is lack of evidence to acknowledge the remaining 10m or 3m in rup.