A. The Plaintiff is a person who is engaged in the temporary materials leasing business under the trade name of “C,” and the Defendant is a person who subcontracted the structural construction among the construction works for the new construction of the ground accommodation facilities in the Dannam-gun, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “AS Construction”) from “AS Construction.”

B. Around March 11, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a material lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendant, setting the lease period of two months [the period of lease for external use (the period of non-commercial use shall be before completion of construction) and the rent of 3,660,000 won (excluding value-added tax and the full payment before payment of materials) and leased temporary materials necessary for the instant construction from around that time to the Defendant.

C. However, the Defendant did not pay at all the rent under the instant lease even after the completion of the instant construction and the return of temporary materials to the Plaintiff. On May 23, 201, 201, the Defendant paid KRW 5,000,000 as the rent to the Plaintiff according to the Defendant’s direct non-performance agreement.

[Based on the facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Gap evidence No. 2-1 through 4, Gap evidence No. 4-1, and the ground for claim judgment as to the whole purport of the pleadings, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of 37,026,000 won (=3,660,000 won x 1.1) under the lease agreement of this case, as sought by the plaintiff, and the remaining amount of 32,026,000 won after being appropriated to the principal and the delay damages from the date following the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case.

In addition, the Plaintiff also sought compensation for the said damages by asserting that the Defendant did not return the amount equivalent to KRW 16,049,000, out of the temporary materials leased by the Plaintiff, and incurred damages equivalent to the same amount. However, both evidence No. 6, evidence No. 10, and evidence No. 11-1 through No. 9, and evidence No. 11-7, which seem to correspond thereto, were unilaterally prepared by the Plaintiff while the Defendant was not present.