A. As to “A Expansion Corporation” from the Defendant, the Plaintiff supplied aggregate from November 2015 to December 2, 2015, and leased construction heavy equipment, etc.

B. On November 30, 2015, the Plaintiff issued each electronic tax invoice of KRW 21,681,00 as the rent for equipment, KRW 19,49,70 as the aggregate price on December 28, 2015, and KRW 21,685,40 as the construction cost on December 28, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1-1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. In full view of the reasoning of the evidence No. 1 to No. 8 of the judgment of the cause of the claim and the purport of the entire pleadings in the voice and the statement No. 1 of the evidence No. 8, even if considering the circumstances alleged by the Defendant through the statement No. 1 of the evidence No. 63,757,100 won in total according to the amount of the tax invoice issued in relation to the above construction work, the Plaintiff has claims against

① The Plaintiff, prior to the issuance of each tax invoice, sent to the Defendant a written request on the details of the purchase price stated in the said tax invoice, and issued the tax invoice. In light of this, the Defendant also seems to have confirmed the Plaintiff’s claim details

② There are equipment inputs in the above site, work logs on aggregate, and takeovers on November 12, 201, except for the portion of sprinked vehicles on November 12, 2015, and the work logs on November 18, 201, among the details written by the Plaintiff in the claim.

(3) According to a construction machinery rental agreement entered in the mid-term work log, “the hours of operation of construction machinery shall be eight hours a day, and if construction machinery falls short of the standard hours (eight hours a day) due to a cause attributable to the lessee, it shall be deemed that the construction machinery was in operation.”

Therefore, the reason why the unit price per hour is different from the content of partial mid-term use shall be calculated as the whole operation of eight hours a day under the principle of adjustment, taking into account the above provisions, with respect to the rent for construction machinery that has not been operated for eight hours a day. However, the Plaintiff is from the rental fee per day.