A. The plaintiff is a person who leases construction materials using the trade name B, and the defendant is a company that carries on water supply and drainage facility construction business.

B. The Defendant awarded orders to the Gangwon-gun C Corporation (hereinafter “instant construction”). On November 2012, the Defendant subcontracted D the part of the soil removal work to D.

C. On November 6, 2012, the Plaintiff agreed to settle the amount of KRW 50,00 per ton at the time of the excess of the lease period as KRW 50,00 per ton, and KRW 850,00 per ton at the time of the damage cutting, while entering into a lease contract with the Defendant for a period of one month of the lease period, 96,820 won per ton of the price (excluding value-added tax) and for a period of 180.58 tons per ton of the sheet file as the scene of Gosung-gun

(hereinafter “instant contract”). D.

D used a sheet file to the Corporation, and returned to January 14, 2013, which was after the expiration of the lease term, 130.261 tons of the said earth set aside from January 14, 2013, and used the remainder 50.327 tons to another construction site, and all of them were returned until March 3, 2014.

E. The user fee incurred from December 6, 2012 to the date of actual return is KRW 45,77,400, which is the day following the expiration of the lease term of the instant contract.

[Grounds for Recognition: Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 2-1 through 3, the absence of dispute, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of claim, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the total amount of 45,777,400 won for the period after the expiration of the lease period and delay damages, barring special circumstances.

(The plaintiff is claiming damages for delay from March 3, 2014, but even based on the plaintiff's assertion, the above user fee is the amount that includes the user fee on the date of return, and thus, the part claiming damages for delay on the day of return is not accepted).

The judgment of the defendant regarding the defendant's assertion (1) is that the actual party who entered into the contract of this case with the plaintiff is D and only the name of the contract was entered as the defendant.