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. The Plaintiff appears to have been aware of the Plaintiff’s location near H as it was G on March 19, 2012, March 27, 2012, April 2, 2012, and April 10, 2012.

C The Defendant did not pay a total of KRW 1,630,000,000, while sending the Plaintiff’s concrete pumps (hereinafter “legal pumps”) to the Plaintiff’s construction site (hereinafter “instant site”) together with a driver.

B. On March 19, 2012, the Defendant used the Plaintiff’s pumps and paid the user fee, and thereafter asserted that the Plaintiff did not use the pumps.

2. Determination No. 4-2, No. 3-2, and No. 4-3 are written work certificates prepared by the pumps (D, E) that belong to the Plaintiff, on April 2, 2012, and on April 10, 2012. Among which, “on-site confirmation person” is indicated as “F” in the “on-site confirmation person” but the fact that the above driver did not receive a seal from F, the Defendant’s employee, is also the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff asserts that Gap evidence Nos. 4-1 (the work certificate dated March 27, 2012) was enclosed by F, the Defendant’s employee.

However, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 3-1 through 4, Gap evidence 7, and the testimony of Gap witness D on March 19, 2012, the plaintiff provided pumps at the site of this case and received 350,000 won from the defendant on March 22, 2012 (in addition to value-added tax 35,000 won), the plaintiff's sales ledger (the evidence 2, the output on July 24, 2012), and the plaintiff's sales ledger (the output on July 24, 2012), the plaintiff provided pumps on March 19, 201 and received the usage fee on March 22, 2012, including 30.0 won on March 27, 2012, value-added tax on April 20, 201; 30.6.05 won on each of the instant pumps at each of the instant site of this case (including 30.50 won on each of this case);