2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

A. On October 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on the Baman to be used for soil works and reinforced concrete works (hereinafter “instant construction works”) among construction works in a lebagogy substation (hereinafter “instant construction”), which was implemented on the lebagog-gun-gun, Gyeonggi-do Mancheon-gun, and leased the lebre to the Defendant from October 2, 2013 to January 4, 2014, but was not paid KRW 16,90,000, out of the lebre usage fees from the Defendant.

However, on October 2, 2013, B entered into the above-mentioned lease agreement with the Defendant and leased the Defendant, but on February 2, 2015, B did not receive KRW 16,900,000 from the Defendant, it transferred the entire claim of the above Crain usage fee to the Plaintiff on February 2, 2015, and thereafter notified the Defendant of the transfer of the above Crain usage fee.

Therefore, the defendant is obliged to pay the plaintiff the above 16,900,000 won for the above cream.

B. First of all, as to whether the Plaintiff or B entered into the above rental agreement with the Defendant, it is not sufficient to recognize the above agreement only by the descriptions of the health room, Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 4, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence 7 and Eul evidence 2 and 3, it seems that the plaintiff or Eul entered into the above lease contract with a non-defendant Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "Saman Construction").

Therefore, without any need to further examine the remaining points of view, the plaintiff's assertion on the premise that the plaintiff or B entered into the above rental agreement with the defendant.

2. Judgment on the conjunctive assertion

A. The gist of the assertion is, even if the other party to whom the Plaintiff or B entered into the above cream rental contract is not the Defendant, but the Defendant is a master construction.