2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

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

A. The Plaintiff is a person who runs the construction business under the trade name “B,” and the Defendant Gangseosan Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) is a company engaging in the construction of forest roads and restoration of forests.

B. The Defendant Company was awarded a contract for a project for installation C (D) in the year 2015 from the Gyeongbuk-do with the construction cost of KRW 119,602,50, and the construction period from March 19, 2015 to June 26, 2015.

In addition, the Defendant Company was awarded a contract for the construction of facilities C located in Dobong-gun, the Republic of Korea Forest Administration for permanent state forests.

(hereinafter “each of the instant construction works”). C.

The Plaintiff worked from May 2015 to July 2015 at each construction site of the instant case. D.

The Defendant Company paid the Plaintiff KRW 7,260,000, and KRW 9,845,000 on September 11, 2015, respectively, to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's entries in Gap's Evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 10 through 13, 18, 21, 22 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' arguments and the judgment on them

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff entered into a lease contract for heavy equipment with the Defendant company, and the Plaintiff worked from May 2015 to July 2015 at each of the construction sites of this case, but the Defendant Company did not pay only part of the rent for heavy equipment and pay the remainder of the rent. Therefore, the Defendant Company is liable to pay the Plaintiff the rent for heavy equipment and damages for delay.

B. The Defendant Company’s assertion that the Defendant Company did not enter into a contract for the rental of heavy equipment with the Plaintiff, and that each of the instant construction works was subcontracted in a lump sum to F and the construction cost was paid to the subcontractor, there is no obligation to pay the Plaintiff the rental fee.

3. The plaintiff alleged that he/she received an oral promise to pay rent after completion of construction from the defendant company prior to the excavation work, but the employee belonging to the defendant company.