1. In accordance with the principal claim that was changed in this court, the defendant 2,616,00 won and its corresponding amount on December 18, 2015 to the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person engaged in a construction business or stone construction business (no license) with the trade name of D outside C in Tong-si, Dong-si, and E (hereinafter “instant company”) is a corporation with the purpose of advertising planning and publicity agency business.

B. The instant company was awarded a contract for production and installation works (hereinafter “instant sculptures”) from Gyeongnam-gun, Busan-gun to KRW 410 million in the cost of construction. The instant sculptures consist of “tin sculptures” and “stain sculptures” (hereinafter “instant construction works”). The instant sculptures were awarded a contract for KRW 410 million in the cost of construction.

C. On July 10, 2015, the instant company entered into an agreement with the Defendant on the production and installation of the sculptures of this case (hereinafter “the instant agreement”). According to the said agreement, the instant company was in charge of the business of leasing the instant sculptures (such as the performance of the instant construction works by obtaining continuous cooperation from the U.S. Si/Gun in performing their duties), contracts, and business management. The Defendant designed the instant sculptures, and was in charge of all the business of installing them (including civil engineering works). In return for the performance of each of the said duties, the instant company intended to have KRW 130 million for the instant construction works, and the Defendant 280 million for the instant construction works.

(2) Under the agreement of this case, if the Defendant designated the company to carry out construction works for the production and installation of the sculptures of this case, the company of this case is obligated to pay the construction cost directly from the money that the Defendant had to the company).

The Defendant, around July 2015, visited the Plaintiff for the supply of “debrising” among the sculptures of this case, discussed whether the production is possible, and then, entered into the contract for the production and installation of “debrising” with the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant contract”) and attached to “debrising” and “debrising.”