2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) around March 9, 2013, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to lease the instant equipment when the machinery ceased while performing construction works of Gangseo-si B (hereinafter “instant construction”).

(2) On March 9, 2013, the Plaintiff provided that the instant equipment was leased to the Defendant with monthly rent of KRW 3,300,000 (including surtax).

(3) However, the Defendant did not pay the above rent to the Plaintiff, and did not refund the instant equipment even after the completion of the instant construction work.

(4) Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant equipment to the Plaintiff and pay the rent, etc. calculated at the rate of KRW 3,300,000 per month from March 9, 2013 to the completion of delivery of the instant equipment.

B. In the judgment of the court below, each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 11, 13, 14, 16-18 (including paper numbers) are insufficient to recognize the fact that "the plaintiff leased the equipment of this case to the defendant by setting a monthly rent of KRW 3,300,00 (including additional tax) around March 9, 2013," and the case where the defendant filed a complaint against the plaintiff's representative director Eul for the suspicion of fraud (No. 2614 of 2015) (refer to evidence No. 16), "C did not have any condition at the time of delivering the equipment of this case" (refer to evidence No. 16), "The defendant's delivery of the equipment of this case to the defendant was lent to the defendant without any condition that the mother was urgently required (refer to evidence No. 17)."

According to the statement of C, there is no separate provision on the rent for the instant equipment, which is different from the Plaintiff’s assertion in this case.

There is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on a different premise is without merit.

2. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit.