2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

A. The Plaintiff is a person who engages in construction machinery leasing business under the trade name of “C,” and the Defendant is a person who engages in construction design business, etc. under the trade name of “D,” and is the owner of the construction project that newly constructs seven-story neighborhood living facilities on the ground of Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and one parcel (hereinafter “instant construction project”).

B. On September 12, 2015, from around January 30, 2016 to around January 30, 2016, the Plaintiff leased construction equipment (PPk; hereinafter “instant equipment”) at the request of F, the site manager of the instant construction site. The Defendant paid KRW 3,080,000 out of the total rent for the instant equipment, out of KRW 9,750,000, to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 5, and 6 (including each number), the testimony of the witness F of the trial court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. (1) The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff leased the instant equipment to the Defendant, who is the owner of the instant construction site, and issued a tax invoice to the Defendant and received some of the rent for the instant equipment from the Defendant. As such, the Defendant, as a party to the instant equipment rental contract, should pay the remainder of the rent for the instant equipment to the Plaintiff.

(2) The Defendant asserted that the Defendant entered into a subcontract with F on August 12, 2015 to construct the structural part of the instant construction project with F to the cost of construction KRW 165 million. The Defendant merely allowed F to lease the instant equipment from the Plaintiff and to obtain a tax invoice only in the name of the Defendant at F’s request, and the Defendant did not enter into a contract to lease the instant equipment, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim in this case did not have any grounds.

B. We examine the following circumstances, i.e., F., the site manager at the construction site of this case, who is receiving monthly pay from the Defendant, as the site manager at the construction site of this case.