2. The court's explanation of this part of the party's assertion is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of

3. Judgment on the issue

A. The following circumstances revealed in light of the fact that the Defendant’s mistake was acknowledged as above, namely, ① the instant construction project was awarded a subcontract for the Korea-U.S. Basic Development, and the Defendant was directly performing the instant construction project following the cancellation of agreement with the Korea-U.S. Basic Development. ② On January 23, 2013, the Defendant and the Korea-U.S. Basic Development, before the cancellation of agreement with the Korea-U.S. Basic Development, verified the details of the Defendant’s payment of the unpaid construction cost and the rent for the temporary materials. The Defendant appears to have been aware that E, the representative of the B company, has put the temporary materials into B at the time of consultation with the Defendant on the unpaid construction cost and rent. ③ The instant agreement was made under the direction of the Defendant, ④ The Defendant did not raise any dispute as to whether to grant rent to the Plaintiff from October 30, 2013 to June 11, 2014.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice for KRW 64,56,887 on the aggregate of the rent for temporary materials from August 2013 to March 2014, with regard to the determination of the claim for unpaid rent, as seen earlier. In full view of the respective entries in evidence Nos. 11, 12, 14, and 17, and the purport of the entire pleadings by witness C of the first instance trial.