1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. Partial cite of the reasons for judgment in the first instance (main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act);

(a) citing the reasons for the judgment of the first instance court, with the deletion from the thirdhhh of the judgment of the first instance court from the following:

As stated in the foregoing paragraph, the following 2. paragraphs are added.

B. However, since the Defendant is the person whose remainder of the equipment rent provided by the Plaintiff is KRW 350,00,000, the Defendant is obligated to pay the equipment rent of KRW 350,000 and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum from May 9, 2019 to May 12, 2020, which is the day following the delivery date of a copy of the application for the change of the purport and cause of the claim sought by the Plaintiff, and from the following day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiff asserts that since F is qualified as the defendant's representative, the part of F's work order should be held liable to the defendant. However, in light of the contents of the examination of the first instance court F's witness, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to support the argument.

Even if the evidence submitted additionally, such as the examination of the witness G in the appellate trial is collected, it is insufficient to specify the scope of the construction and rent liable to the defendant.

3. The Defendant asserts that the period of one-year extinctive prescription is applied to the instant rent claim pursuant to Article 164(2) of the Civil Act. However, Article 164 subparag. 2 of the Civil Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 76Da1839, Sept. 28, 1976) cannot be deemed to apply to the instant rent claim where the transaction has been conducted repeatedly over several months as in the instant case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 7

4. The plaintiff's claim should be accepted within the scope of KRW 350,00 and its delay damages. The part against the defendant in excess of the above in the judgment of the court of first instance cannot be maintained as it is.

The defendant's appeal pointing this out is legitimate, and the part of the judgment of the first instance is revoked and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

The defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed.

In the judgment of the first instance.