1. The Defendant’s KRW 24,738,461 as well as the annual rate of KRW 5% from February 4, 2017 to July 4, 2018, and the next day.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an individual entrepreneur operating construction machinery rental business, and the Defendant is a company that runs an aggregate extraction business, etc.

B. On July 5, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a construction machinery rental agreement with the following terms:

(hereinafter “instant contract”). Lease object. The lease period: the location of the workplace from July 6, 2016 to July 5, 2017 (1 year) from July 6, 2016: The place of use of the instant machine shall be the premises of the Defendant Company located in Gangwon-gun.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant workplace”): The user fee shall be six-day per week in principle.

(No. 8 million won per month, value added tax). The defendant shall calculate and pay to the plaintiff 32,00 won a Si salary when working in excess.

Measures against Non-performance of Contract: In case of failure to perform this contract, the plaintiff and the defendant shall compensate for the damages suffered by each other, and the plaintiff may immediately withdraw the machinery of this case.

C. On September 2016, the Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to withdraw the instant machinery from the instant workplace on grounds of the reduction in the quantity of wintering work, etc., and notified the Plaintiff of the removal of the instant machinery by November 2016, even around December 2016.

Accordingly, on December 1, 2016, the Plaintiff completed the instant machinery in the instant workplace. D.

The Plaintiff leased the instant machinery to D and E from December 2, 2016 to June 2017, and received KRW 27,500,000 from D Co., Ltd. (the amount excluding value added tax), KRW 5,300,000 (excluding value added tax), total of KRW 32,80,000 from E, as rent.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy Facts, Gap 1, 2, 3, and 4, each entry, witness F's testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. The Defendant unilaterally demanded the Plaintiff to accept the instant machine, and unjustly reversed the instant contract.

Therefore, the defendant is therefore the plaintiff.