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

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

A. On March 31, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant on the use of heavy equipment (B/H 140W, vehicle number B) as follows:

(hereinafter “instant contract”). The monthly user fee from April 1, 2012 to June 30, 2013 from April 1, 2012 to June 30, 2013, the daily operating hours of 8,000,000 won and 200 hours per month from April 1, 2012 to June 30, 201

B. From April 1, 2012 to December 2, 2012, the Plaintiff puts heavy equipment and heavy equipment DNA into D at the Defendant’s construction site. On December 31, 2012, the aforementioned Line Improvement Works was suspended.

C. Meanwhile, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff the full amount of the user fee from April 1, 2012 to June 2012, and KRW 6 million, which is part of the user fee from July 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The facts acknowledged prior to the determination as to the cause of the claim, and according to the overall purport of Gap evidence No. 1-1-6, Eul evidence No. 1-1-6, and Eul evidence No. 11-1, the Defendant’s fee to be paid to the Plaintiff under the instant contract from July 2, 2012 to December 2012 is KRW 42,867,50 (= KRW 48,867,500 - KRW 6,000) as follows.

Amount paid (won) 8,800,000 6,000,000 on July 8, 2012 (the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff) 8,800,000 on August 8, 2012 (the Plaintiff) 8,800,800,8000 on September 8, 2012; 8,800,800,000 on October 8, 2012; 6,160,000 on November 6, 2012; 48,867,50,000 on the aggregate of 7,507,500 on December 7, 2012; 48,867,500,000,000

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion on double payment of labor cost 10%, the Defendant asserted that D’s labor cost for heavy equipment engineer also prepared a work site as a general worker and received false labor cost in duplicate. However, even if such circumstance exists, the Plaintiff’s claim seeking the instant royalty is unreasonable. However, as long as the Plaintiff delivers heavy equipment to the Defendant under a contract and uses it, the Plaintiff’s claim for the instant royalty claim is established regardless of whether the said D’s labor cost was unfairly received.