임대료
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the alternative claim added at the trial and the conjunctive claim are all dismissed.
2. Appeal;
1. The reasoning of the court of first instance for the acceptance of the judgment is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of first instance, except for adding the following judgments to each claim added at the court of first instance, which is subsequent to the first instance, No. 6 of the judgment of first instance, and as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The plaintiff at least agreed to pay the rent for temporary materials directly to the plaintiff between E, which constitutes a contract for third party with the intent of having the plaintiff acquire the right to claim the payment of the rent for the above temporary materials, but the defendant asserts that he/she is liable to pay the above rent to the plaintiff who declared the intent of profit pursuant to the above agreement. However, the witness G of the first instance court, which seems to conform to the fact that there was an agreement between the defendant and E, is difficult to believe that some testimony of the witness G of the first instance court was made, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the above argument is without merit.
3. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff, while excluding E during the subcontracted project in this case, failed to pay rent for the temporary materials that occurred at the time of the plaintiff's direct performance of the construction project by using the leased temporary materials, and thus, it should be refunded. However, as seen above, E, even after March 2013, using the above temporary materials leased by the plaintiff, continued the subcontracted project in this case by the time of completion of the subcontracted project and carried out the subsequent temporary materials to the plaintiff at the construction site in this case, and there is no evidence to prove that the defendant used the above temporary materials without any title in relation to the construction project in this case, and there is no other evidence to prove that E used the above temporary materials without any title.