1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

In fact, the Plaintiff was awarded a contract for the 1,308,175,000 won for construction work from Jindo-do, Jindo-do (hereinafter “instant construction”).

The Defendant asserted against the Plaintiff that “The Plaintiff is liable to pay the unpaid rent, as the Plaintiff did not pay part of the agreed rent even though the Defendant leased the construction equipment for the construction site of this case from the Defendant,” while filing a lawsuit for claiming the rent for the construction equipment with the Gun court in the Jeonju District Court.”

On February 19, 2016, the above court rendered a decision on performance recommendation (the above court No. 2016Da3566), stating that "the plaintiff shall pay the defendant 17,395,160 won and damages for delay," and the decision on performance recommendation was finalized around that time.

【In the absence of dispute, the Plaintiff’s assertion of the purport of the entire pleadings, and the Plaintiff’s assertion of the judgment party, based on the fact that there is no dispute, Gap’s evidence No. 1, and the fact-finding of the court of first instance, subcontracted the entire construction of this case to Eul, and Eul concluded a construction equipment lease agreement with the Defendant

Ultimately, the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not have concluded a construction equipment rental contract, and the Plaintiff does not have an obligation to pay the above rent to the Defendant.

Therefore, compulsory execution according to the above decision of performance recommendation should be rejected.

Since the Plaintiff Company entered into a construction equipment lease agreement with the Defendant and received construction equipment from the Defendant at the construction site of this case, the Plaintiff Company is obligated to pay the Defendant rent according to the decision on performance recommendation.

Judgment

Since there is no dispute between the parties that the Defendant invested the construction equipment at the construction site of this case, whether the parties to the agreement on the lease of the construction equipment invested at the construction site of this case are the Plaintiff or C is examined.

chapter 1, 2, and 3 of this title, including the number of evidence; and