A. On February 8, 2012, the Defendant (formerly, C Co., Ltd.) accepted contracts from D Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd. (formerly, Company E Co., Ltd.; hereinafter “D”) with respect to Francheon-si restoration works and G small river flood restoration works (hereinafter “each of the instant works”) that D contracted from Pocheon-si (formerly, Company E Co., Ltd.). The Defendant (formerly, Company C Co., Ltd.) selected sub-contractors and performed the said construction works.

B. As D’s act of giving a subcontract to the Defendant under Article 96 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry was prohibited, D and the Defendant issued a tax invoice, etc. in the form of direct payment by D of the construction cost of the sub-contractor that the Defendant entrusted with the construction in order to avoid such illegal subcontracting, and created the appearance that D directly manages each of the construction of this case. The actual sub-contractor paid the construction cost by D to the Defendant and the Defendant paid the sub-contractor to the Defendant.

C. The Plaintiff operating construction machinery leasing business under the trade name of “H” entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant for construction machinery at each construction site of this case, and the same year from February 2012

6. From September 17, 2013, a construction machinery amounting to KRW 27,225,00 was offered to each construction site of the instant case, and KRW 5 million was paid from D around September 17, 2013.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2-1-4, Gap evidence 3, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff rent of 22,225,000 won unpaid construction machinery (=27,225,000 won - 5,000,000 won) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from February 28, 2015 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case sought by the Plaintiff.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.