A. The Plaintiff is a person who runs the business of leasing equipment in the name of “E”.

B. Defendant C Co., Ltd (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd”) agreed to lease three power generation vehicles from Defendant D to 1,200,000 won per day from October 13, 2017 to December 22, 201 of the same month in order to charge for the car charging, etc. necessary for the G Games held at the F Golf course located in Jeju, and Defendant D agreed to lease three power generation vehicles from the Plaintiff under the said condition.

C. On October 10, 2017, the Plaintiff received KRW 5,500,00 from H (hereinafter “H”) and issued electronic tax invoices consisting of KRW 5,500,000 (i.e., total value of supply and tax amount) from the Defendant Company, and (ii) received KRW 8,800,000 from the Defendant Company on October 23, 201, and issued the electronic tax invoices consisting of KRW 8,800,00 (i.e., KRW 7,920,000) from the Defendant Company and received KRW 8,800,000 on the same day.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1, 3, 4, defendant D himself/herself, the result of the examination, the purport of all pleadings

2. As to the defendant company

A. From October 13 to December 22, 2017, the Defendant Company asserting that the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff agreed to jointly lease KRW 1,200,000 per day from the above golf course to three of three of the three of the three of the said golf course development vehicles (excluding value-added tax) and agreed to jointly lease with Defendant D, and used until October 24 of the same year, which was extended on October 14 of the same year by two days after delivery of the three of the development vehicles on October 14 of the same year, and thus, the Plaintiff shall jointly and severally pay KRW 30,200,000, which was not paid to the Plaintiff out of KRW 43,20,000 (excluding value-added tax).

The representative of the Defendant Company I promised to pay the Plaintiff the difference of development.

B. The evidence requested and invoked by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant Company entered into a rental agreement with the Plaintiff. The Defendant Company’s representative questioning result of the Defendant Company, and other applications by the Plaintiff.