Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and the purport of the appeal are the judgment of the first instance.

Although the Plaintiff provided the Defendant with construction machinery equipment from August 20, 2016 to January 15, 2017, the Plaintiff did not receive KRW 16,340,000 in total, and KRW 17,190,00 in total, and KRW 17,190,00 in total, and KRW 16,340,00 in total, and KRW 16,340,00 in total, from November 20, 2016, and from January 15, 2017.

2. Determination

A. According to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 7 (including numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and witness D's testimony and change, although the plaintiff had been in charge of Saturdays from August 2016 to January 15, 2017, it is not sufficient to recognize that the plaintiff still received the defendant's claim to the plaintiff as the defendant's account transfer money from August 1 to January 15, 2017, since the evidence submitted by the plaintiff is insufficient to prove that the plaintiff remains in existence of the unpaid equipment rental fee and the equipment transport fee to be paid from the defendant as alleged by the plaintiff [ contrary to the purport of each evidence Nos. 1 through 6 and all arguments, according to the whole purport of evidence Nos. 1 to 6, the plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff was still entitled to refund the above amount of money to the defendant's account No. 30,685,000 (including value added tax) and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff received the above amount of money from the defendant's account No. 40.

According to the evidence evidence No. 1, the plaintiff was found to have remitted KRW 44,30,00 to E’s account from September 13, 2016 to January 25, 2017. However, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the money transferred to E’s account was returned to the defendant, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

3. The plaintiff's claim is without merit.