Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant asserted the same purport in the lower court’s judgment, but the lower court rejected the allegation in full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and examined:

The Defendant used the name “(1) even if he is not the chief of CConstruction Co., Ltd. (3rd page 68 of the evidence records), and the Defendant was unable to pay the pertinent fee for more than four years from the time when he lent the instant pumps. ② At the construction site, the Defendant asserted that H should bear the pertinent fee since H was leased the instant pumps due to the fact that H was under the Defendant’s leased the instant pumps, but H did not have the position to pay the fee. However, H did not have the right to use the pumps due to the lack of interest, and rather, the Defendant did not pay the Defendant’s wages due to the lack of wage to the Defendant. (44 and 45 pages of evidence records). (3) The C Construction Director, who allowed the Defendant to use the name of C Construction, paid KRW 500,000 to the Defendant under the name of C Construction, and the Defendant did not pay the amount of KRW 500,000,000,000,000 to C Construction.