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. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person who runs the construction equipment leasing business, and the Defendant is a construction company that received a contract for the construction work of installing a water pipe C from the inn city on March 9, 2015 (hereinafter “instant construction work”).

B. The Plaintiff, at the request of D (the head of the instant construction site) or E, who is an employee belonging to the Defendant, was paid KRW 492,00 per day at the instant construction site on July 2016, and was paid KRW 480,00 per day for ten days from August 2016 to October 2016, and was paid KRW 480,00 per day for ten days from August 2016, and used each construction equipment for ten days from September 4, 2016, and for one day from October 2016.

C. On July 31, 2016, the Plaintiff issued each tax invoice of KRW 4,920,000 on supply value of KRW 4,920,00, and KRW 4,800,00 on August 31, 2016 to the Defendant.

On September 13, 2016, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 10,692,00 (= KRW 5,412,000) out of the construction equipment costs under each of the above tax invoices (= KRW 5,280,000).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2 evidence, Eul 6 evidence, testimony of party witness E and purport of whole pleading

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the construction equipment cost of 2,640,000 won unpaid to the plaintiff [[492,00 won/day 】 480,000 won 】 10 days 】 (10 days x (10 days x 4 days) 】 1.1 - 10,692,000 won] and damages for delay calculated by the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from May 16, 2017 to the day of full payment, except in extenuating circumstances.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff’s input of construction equipment at the construction site of this case would be subject to D’s request, which was actually subcontracted by the Defendant and performed the construction work of this case as an individual business operator, and there is no contractual relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot comply

In this regard, the above evidence is examined, and the evidence mentioned above.