1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit.

Facts of recognition

The Defendant was awarded a subcontract for reinforced concrete construction work among B construction works ordered by the Cheongnam-do Office of Education, Cheongnam-do Office of Education, which was ordered by the joint Defendant 1’s joint Defendant 1 to build the Mad bargaining Comprehensive Construction Company (hereinafter “construction”).

On March 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the use of pumps (specific building equipment) related to the above reinforced concrete construction, and performed concrete building work.

The user fee for equipment generated from April 1, 2015 to August 31, 2015 is KRW 10,780,000 [2,970,000 ( April 2015) (3,850,000) ( July 2015) (2,420,000) (3,850,000 ( July 2015)]. Of this, KRW 2,00,000 is paid and unpaid KRW 8,780,000 (=10,780,000,000).

On August 31, 2015, when the Defendant agreed to enter into a subcontract with the Construction Company of the Right to Demand Redemption, and settled the following matters, the Defendant agreed to pay the Plaintiff a fee for the use of the equipment that the Construction Company of the Right to Demand Redemption to pay for the payment of the unpaid equipment and to exempt the Plaintiff from its obligation, and issued the Plaintiff a written statement of non-performance to the effect that it

(hereinafter “instant agreement”). On September 1, 2015, the Construction of the Mademy Mademy General Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “New Chang Construction”) concluded a subcontract for the said reinforced concrete construction again, and agreed to succeed to the obligation related to the Defendant in the construction of the Madem General Construction for New Chang Construction and to guarantee the payment of the said construction.

Even after the agreement of this case was reached, the Plaintiff continued to perform concrete purification work with pumps up to December 30, 2015.

[Grounds for recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including additional numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and the plaintiff's assertion of the purport of the whole pleadings is the party who entered into a contract for the use of equipment with the plaintiff, and the defendant is jointly and severally liable to pay 8,780,000 won to the plaintiff for the comprehensive construction of the exercise of rights of redemption, which is the contractor,.

The defendant.