1. Pursuant to the first preliminary claim among the claims that were changed in exchange at this court, the defendant shall be the plaintiff 120,249.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff prepared a written contract with the Defendant to perform construction works of security camera or information and communications construction works, etc. (hereinafter collectively referred to as “each of the instant contracts”) as follows:

(1) Information and communications construction works (the first unit of information and communications construction works) consisting of 36,300,000 won of the contract amount of October 1, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “first construction works”)

(2) The Seongbuk-gu Seoul A Park CCTV purchase and installation work (hereinafter “the third construction work”) with the contract amount of KRW 85 million as of November 12, 2012, the contract amount of G newly established parking lot video monitoring system purchase and installation work (hereinafter “the second construction work”) at KRW 35 million as of November 19, 2012.

(4) On December 1, 2012, in the case of Go Chang Chang-gun, the contract amount of KRW 11,500,000,000, the vehicle number-based purchase installation works (hereinafter “No. 4 construction works”) 5) on December 17, 2012, the B security camera purchase installation works (hereinafter “No. 5 construction works”) with the contract amount of KRW 55 million on December 17, 2012.

6) Information and communications construction projects (the second part) in which the contract amount of March 2, 2013 is KRW 650,9450,000 (the second part) for a stadium 650,000,000;

B. From November 29, 2012 to July 1, 2013, the Plaintiff issued to the Defendant a tax invoice amounting to the contract amount of each of the construction works in subparagraphs 1 to 6 (hereinafter “each of the instant construction works”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 8, 9, 14, 15, and 16 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As to the main claim (as to the agreed amount)

A. A. Around October 2012, Plaintiff 1 asserted by the parties, the Defendant and the Defendant entered into an agreement between the Defendant and the Defendant that uses part of Plaintiff’s company’s work as an office and that uses the subcontracted work as a substitute for the interest equivalent to the difference in the construction cost incurred by re-subcontracting the subcontracted work from the Defendant to the subcontractor.

Accordingly, the plaintiff and the defendant are related to individual construction subcontract.