1. The Defendant’s KRW 143,146,40 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from November 1, 2016 to December 21, 2016.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 13, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the lease of temporary materials necessary for construction at the construction site B in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, and the Defendant paid rent therefor. In the event that the Defendant fails to refund the temporary materials due to damage or loss, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the lease of the temporary materials with the intent to pay the amount of loss

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). At the time, C guaranteed the Defendant’s obligation under the instant lease agreement to the Plaintiff.

B. According to the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff leased temporary materials to the Defendant from June 14, 2016 to October 31, 2016 pursuant to the said lease agreement.

C. The Plaintiff did not receive KRW 120,360,00 among the rents under the instant lease agreement, and KRW 22,786,40,00, in total, KRW 143,146,40,00 from the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 through 5 evidence (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff a total of KRW 143,146,400, including the above rent, etc., and for this, 5% per annum as prescribed by the Civil Act from November 1, 2016 to December 21, 2016, the service date of the original copy of the payment order in this case, and 15% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from the following day to the date of full payment.

B. The defendant's assertion is alleged to the effect that the defendant is not liable for the issuance of the on-site director system, and is responsible for all the rights and responsibilities concerning the human resources, materials, equipment, etc. required at the site. Accordingly, C commenced the construction of this case. Since the defendant prepared a contract with C for the transfer of bonds with C, it is argued that the defendant is not responsible for it.