건설장비임대료
1. The plaintiff (appointed party)'s claim is all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).
The Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the designated parties asserted that they leased sckes and dump trucks at the site of “H project construction” (hereinafter “instant construction”) executed by the Defendant, and seek payment of the rent for each equipment, such as the entries in the claim, to the Defendant.
However, the Defendant asserted that the instant construction was subcontracted to I Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “I”), and the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the designated parties concluded a contract for equipment lease with I, not the Defendant.
The Plaintiff (Appointed Party) also stated to the effect that, at the date of pleading of the instant case, the Plaintiff leased equipment to the Defendant at the date of pleading, but the I did not have sufficient means to demand the rent for equipment
Considering these circumstances, the Plaintiff’s assertion by the appointed party is not acceptable, inasmuch as there is no other evidence to acknowledge that a equipment lease contract was concluded between the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the Defendant on the sole basis of a copy of each construction machinery contract written by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party).
Therefore, the plaintiff (Appointed Party)'s claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.