1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The parties' assertion

A. Since the Plaintiff leased the construction equipment to the Defendant from April 8, 2015 to July 11, 2015, the Defendant is obligated to pay the said construction equipment fee to the Plaintiff.

B. The Defendant waived the instant construction project on May 30, 2015 and left the site, and thus, the subsequent user fee cannot be paid, and since the Plaintiff Company B (hereinafter “B”) which is the owner of the building (hereinafter “B”), the user fee for the construction equipment should be paid by B.

2. Determination

(a)The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be admitted in accordance with the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 3, 6, 7, and Eul evidence No. 1 (including each number), as a whole, and the entire pleadings:

1) From April 8, 2015 to July 11, 2015, the Plaintiff is a file retaining wall installation site (hereinafter “instant construction site”) performed by the Defendant under a contract from B in a C general industrial complex (hereinafter “instant construction site”).

A) A construction equipment was leased to the Defendant, and the rent is KRW 11,150,00,00. (2) D and E (the site director at the instant construction site) continuously prepared a work confirmation of the construction equipment leased by the Plaintiff from April 8, 2015 to July 11, 2015 on behalf of the Defendant, while performing the work at the instant construction site on behalf of the Defendant. During the said period, the Plaintiff stated “Bri Construction” in the “on-site name” column of each work confirmation document, excluding the work confirmation certificate dated June 11, 2015.

3. On May 30, 2015, the Defendant prepared a letter of waiver of construction that the instant construction project could not be performed smoothly, and the said letter of waiver of construction works, which was prepared by the Defendant, was a document prepared in advance against a subsequent dispute regardless of the actual progress of construction works at the request of B, the contractor, and the employees of the Defendant’s side continued to reside at the construction site even after May 30, 2015.

B. The above facts of recognition, evidence Nos. 7, Eul evidence No. 1, and trial.