Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

A. From January 2016, the Plaintiff leased machinery and equipment to the Defendant, who runs a construction machinery rental business under the trade name “E” with a place of business located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “E”) and runs a construction business in the name of “G” in the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F.

B. From January 2016 to November 201, 2017, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice of KRW 14,340,000,000 in total, to the Defendant who leased and supplied machinery and equipment to the Defendant. As to this, the Defendant paid KRW 2,970,000 to the Plaintiff on March 7, 2016, including the payment of KRW 2,970,000 to the Plaintiff on 25 occasions until April 2, 2018.

C. From December 2017 to August 2019, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice of KRW 12,5180,000,000,000 in total, to H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co., Ltd.”). As to this, Nonparty Co., Ltd paid KRW 78,90,000 to the Plaintiff by September 5, 2019.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1, 2, Eul's 1 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff was not paid KRW 4,3180,00 (hereinafter “instant equipment costs”) to the Defendant, who operates the Plaintiff’s “G”.

The plaintiff did not have been engaged in the transaction of leasing equipment with the non-party company, but only the tax invoice was issued in the non-party company at the request of the defendant since December 2017 while continuously traded with the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the costs of the instant equipment and damages for delay to the plaintiff.

B. The Defendant is an individual entrepreneur with the trade name of “G,” and the non-party company is a company with independent substance.

From December 2017, the plaintiff is not the defendant but the non-party company.