1. The judgment of the first instance court, including the Plaintiff’s claim extended at the trial room, shall be modified as follows:

The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person engaged in the business of selling and installing electronic equipment under the trade name of “C,” and the Defendant was engaged in the business of installing air-conditioning and cooling equipment under the trade name of “D.”

B. The Defendant has been engaged in the transaction with the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant transaction”) by receiving a contract for the installation of cooling and heating equipment from ELS Co., Ltd. and giving a subcontract to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence No. 2 and purport of whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff and the Defendant had been engaged in the instant transaction from around 2007, and around 2009, the transaction was interrupted, and the transaction was resumed from around 2010 to around August 30, 2012.

On the other hand, transactions until 2009 are settled among the original defendant, but transactions from 2010 have not yet been settled as follows, and the payable amount reaches 31,260,400 won (15,979,725 - 124,719,325).

The amount of construction work performed between the sequences 15,979,725 34,166,875 201 47,788,950 47,059,850 3203 63,373,200,492,600 - 155,979,725 124,719,3255

3. Determination

A. According to each of the statements in Evidence A Nos. 11 and 12, up to May 2011, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice to D Co., Ltd. until April 30, 201, but may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice to the Defendant from May 31, 201.

According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff seems to have transacted with D, not the defendant, until May 2011, and there is no reason to request the defendant to pay the construction price corresponding to the period.

The plaintiff alleged that he was aware that he was engaged in a transaction with the defendant, not D, even during the above period, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

(b)request the cost of construction after May 201;