중기사용료
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to pay below shall be revoked.
The defendant.
1. Under the trade name of C, the Plaintiff is a person operating construction machinery leasing business, and the Defendant is a contractor awarded a contract for the construction of the E facilities on the ground of Busan Shipping Daegu D (hereinafter “instant construction”).
On March 2013, the Plaintiff lent an aggregate of KRW 31,845,00 (including value-added tax) to the construction site of the instant construction site, and received equipment costs of KRW 17,395,00 among them.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 3 (including a tentative number, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff entered into a equipment rental contract with the Defendant with the introduction of the Plaintiff’s wooden manager F in the instant construction site. During that process, the Plaintiff received instructions from the director G, who is the Defendant’s on-site manager, or received direct equipment costs from the Defendant. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid equipment costs.
B. On February 2013, the Defendant subcontracted the instant construction of reinforced concrete to F. The Defendant: (a) subcontracted the instant construction of reinforced concrete to F; and (b) the Plaintiff requested the Plaintiff to rent clers to the Plaintiff; and (c) put clers, etc. into the instant construction site
In other words, since the plaintiff did not have entered into a direct equipment rental contract with the defendant, the defendant cannot claim the user fee to the plaintiff. Even if not, the defendant has no obligation to pay the user fee to the defendant as long as the defendant fully pays the construction cost including the equipment cost to F.
3. Determination
A. The key issue of the instant case is whether the Plaintiff and the Defendant can be deemed to have concluded a equipment leasing contract. The following circumstances, namely, ① the Plaintiff’s input of equipment into the construction site of this case, are the basic facts as seen earlier, the evidence as mentioned earlier, and the testimony of Party A witness F, together with the overall purport of the pleadings.