beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a company that operates dump trucks, etc. with the trade name “B” and the Defendant is an engineering work company, etc.
B. On March 9, 2015, the Defendant contracted for “C Corporation 1” (hereinafter “C Corporation”) from the Innju City. On December 17, 2015, the Defendant respectively implemented D Corporation 2 (hereinafter “D Corporation 2”) by being awarded a contract with the Korea Rural Community Corporation’s Gyeonggi Headquarters.
C. From October 1, 2016 to October 23, 2016, the Plaintiff supplied dump trucks, which are construction equipment, at each construction site.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 3, Eul evidence 9, 11, 32, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties’ assertion that “The Plaintiff entered into a dump truck lease contract with the Defendant, and supplied the Plaintiff dump truck at each of the instant construction site from October 1, 2016 to October 23, 2016.” Therefore, the Defendant asserts that “The Plaintiff shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 11,715,000 in total of dump truck rent.”
The defendant asserts that "after receiving a contract for each of the instant construction works, the instant construction works were subcontracted to New Company 1 and E in the lump sum, and the plaintiff concluded a contract for the lease of equipment with New Company 1 and E, thus, the defendant is not obligated to pay the equipment rent to the plaintiff."
3. Determination
A. In full view of the following circumstances, prior to the occurrence of the Defendant’s obligation to pay the equipment rent, and the overall purport of the arguments, the parties who entered into the agreement with the Plaintiff are deemed the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant should pay the equipment rent to the Plaintiff.
① Although the Defendant asserts that he subcontracted the instant secondary construction work to E, there is no evidence to acknowledge this fact.
② Rather, the settlement agreement (No. 23) drafted in the name of the defendant is “E” as the defendant’s on-site agent.