Based on adopted evidence, the lower court determined, based on the premise that the date of release of underground floors of the main office of temporary materials under the instant lease agreement, which the Plaintiff agreed to lease temporary materials to the Defendant in connection with the relocation work of the 35 company group, was June 29, 201; the date of return was April 10, 2012; the date of delivery of the main office’s connecting passage; the date of return was January 6, 2012; the date of delivery was April 10, 2012; the date of delivery of the underground parking lot section of the main office was November 26, 201; the date of return was March 2, 2012; the date of delivery of the cooking section was October 17, 2011; the date of delivery of the cooking section was the date of return; the date of return was the date of return; the date of return was more than 30 days from the date of return; the date of return was the date of return of the main office’s outer parking lot; the date of 10.

However, on the grounds of the judgment below, the court below held that the lease contract of this case was concluded on the basis of the quantity of construction for each construction section, not the material quantity, and that the lease contract of this case is inevitable to calculate the lease period by including the period fixed at the site in the lease period for the diversion of the temporary materials used in one section for other sections, and thus, the lease contract of this case was concluded on the basis of the quantity of construction for each construction section.

Nevertheless, in light of the records, the court below seems to have determined the date when the temporary materials used in a certain section were finally stored in the plaintiff as the date of returning the temporary materials in that section, without examining whether the temporary materials used in that section were diverted to another section. Furthermore, the court below recognized that the date of shipping the temporary materials in the station of history was July 25, 201 and the date of returning was November 30, 201, and recognized as the date of November 30, 201. Accordingly, the number of days exceeding the 60-day rental period is 69 days, but the court below determined that the excess days was 131 days, and calculated the additional rental fee

Therefore, the lower court’s determination as above is that there was an error in the order of reason as stipulated in Article 424(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act. The allegation in the grounds of appeal pointing this out has a justifiable reason.

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the part against the defendant among the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench

Justices Lee In-bok, Counsel for the appeal

Justices Kim Yong-deok

Justices Kim Gin-young