대여금
1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be revoked.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is an employee of the Cheongtoto Co., Ltd. (the trade name before the change: Hantong Construction Co., Ltd.; hereinafter “Cheongtotong”), and the Defendant is a company that contracts construction machinery and leases.
B. The Defendant from the beginning of March 2016 to the same year
4. Until the middle end, the construction equipment, such as sckes and dump trucks, was leased at the site of the construction site of the Nam-gu D (hereinafter “instant construction”) located in the Nam-gu, Nam-gu (hereinafter “instant construction”), and on April 30, 2016, the government issued a tax invoice for KRW 13,200,000 (including value-added tax) under the name of the Defendant to the Cheongtotong in the name of the Defendant.
C. Between May 9, 2016 and November 11, 2016, the Cheongto-Gongju paid a total of KRW 13,200,000 to the Defendant as equipment usage fee on five occasions.
Meanwhile, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 2,350,000,000 to E, who is the representative director of the Defendant, as well as KRW 2,350,00,00 on September 14, 2016.
【Fact-finding, Gap’s evidence 1, 2, Eul’s evidence 2 and 5(including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff asserted that the construction equipment was leased to the Defendant at KRW 7,458,00 (=6,780,000, value added tax of KRW 678,000,000), while directly performing the instant construction work by contract with the Cheongtototong for the instant construction work, and that the Defendant lent KRW 2,350,000,00 in total, over both days on September 13, 2016 and September 14, 2016.
Although the Defendant was paid KRW 13,200,000 as equipment usage fee for the equipment from the Cheongto-air, the Defendant did not return to the Plaintiff the remainder [5,742,00 won [i.e., KRW 13,20,000 paid by the Defendant from the Cheongto-air - KRW 7,458,00 for equipment usage fee to be paid by the Plaintiff] except for the equipment usage fee for the Defendant.
Therefore, the Defendant should pay the Plaintiff KRW 5,742,00 and the Plaintiff KRW 2,350,000.
B. The defendant's assertion is that construction equipment is installed at the construction site of this case between the Bostong and Bostong.