1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the subsequent order of payment shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. From August 2016 to November 201, 2016, the Plaintiff leased a total amount of 85,728,500 won to the construction site where reinforced concrete construction is carried out, and the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice to the Defendant as follows.

Postal issue amount of KRW 13,024,00,00 for each month of issuance, 200 KRW 3.9,625,00 on August 13, 2016; KRW 300,800 on September 8, 2016; KRW 400,000 on September 20, 2016; KRW 50,00 on October 19, 2016; KRW 622,50 on October 7, 2016; KRW 7,480,00 on October 7, 2016; KRW 282,00 on November 7, 2016; KRW 85,728,500 on the aggregate of KRW 85,50 on September 28, 200.

B. From October 19, 2016 to January 20, 2017, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 74,903,50 in total as follows:

Amount paid on October 19, 2016 KRW 8,800,000 on November 1, 2016, KRW 7,700,000 on November 19, 2016, KRW 7,700,000 on December 3, 2016, December 12, 2016; KRW 595,000 on December 12, 2016; KRW 35,743,00 on January 20, 2017; KRW 74,90,500 on the aggregate of KRW 74,903,50 on November 35, 2017;

C. Of KRW 10,825,000, KRW 3,825,000 out of the difference between the amount of the above tax invoice issued and the amount paid, the remaining amount for the equipment leased to the Defendant at the construction site of the Bridge by the Plaintiff, and KRW 7,000,000 is the amount for the equipment leased to the Plaintiff at the construction site of C.

On the other hand, on December 20, 2016, the Defendant deposited KRW 7,000,000 as to the construction site C at C at the construction site, and entered the “E” as the name of the Plaintiff in the gold recording column.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3, 4, Eul evidence 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The claim for the equipment cost of KRW 3,825,00 and damages for delay in the construction site at the construction site at the construction site at the Bridge was fully cited in the judgment of the first instance court, and since the Defendant did not appeal, the subject of the judgment by this court is limited to the claim related to C Construction Site as seen below.

3. Determination as to the claim related to C Construction Site

A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant is a party to the equipment rental contract for the construction site C, and the defendant shall pay the remaining price of KRW 7,000,000 and delay damages to the plaintiff.