However, there is no fact that the above construction was subcontracted to the defendant, and there was no intention or ability to pay the rent for the above excavation period.

Nevertheless, the defendant from March 13, 2012 to the same year.

6. Until August 6, 200, the above mining groundr was leased and the price was not paid, thereby making proprietary benefits equivalent to KRW 15 million.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence adopted and examined by this court, E was awarded a subcontract for the foundation work of D&D from GS Construction, and E was asked for the Defendant to supply stones, soil, etc. coming from the time of the said foundation work to the Defendant, and requested for the introduction of the extraction machine business operator necessary for the said foundation work. The Defendant requested C to lease the extraction machine while being awarded a subcontract for the said D&D work. While C attempted to put it into the foundation work, it can be acknowledged that C waited for the extraction machine around the site of the construction work since the commencement of the construction work.

The above facts and the evidence are comprehensively considered as follows. In other words, if the above-mentioned infrastructure was normally conducted by the above-mentioned foundation corporation, the defendant would have been able to get profits by selling stones, soil, etc. coming from the above-mentioned foundation corporation, so the defendant appears to have taken advantage of the above-mentioned foundation corporation as soon as possible. The defendant also did not proceed with the above foundation corporation and caused damage not to sell stones, soil, etc., and the defendant was not used for other purposes, but at any time in the site of construction so that it can be put into the above foundation corporation at any time.