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.

1. The parties' assertion

A. On August 2017, the Defendant contracted the construction work of constructing the second-story housing (hereinafter “new construction work”) to D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”).

Around October 10, 2017, the Defendant had agreed upon and rescinded the contract agreement with the non-party company and employed E and F, and directly executed the remaining new construction work.

After concluding a heavy equipment rental contract with the Defendant or his/her agent F, the Plaintiff leased the equipment to the Defendant six times during the period from October 17, 2017, from November 8, 2017 to November 10, 2017, from November 17, 2017, from November 17, 2017, and on November 28, 2017.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the rent of 2.3 million won for heavy equipment and damages for delay.

B. The Defendant contracted a new construction work to the non-party company, and the non-party company F, an employee of the non-party company, leased heavy equipment from the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the Defendant is not obliged to pay the heavy equipment rent.

2. In full view of the following facts and circumstances that can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the descriptions of Eul evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 7-1 through 7, Eul evidence Nos. 8-10 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 10, and the witness F of the first instance court, witness G of this court, and Eul’s testimony and the whole purport of oral arguments, it is reasonable to view that the new construction of this case was contracted by the defendant by the non-party company contracted with the defendant, and that F

Some of the statements in Gap evidence 1 through 7-1 and 2, or witness F of the first instance court, witness E of this court, and witness G of this court are insufficient to reverse the above recognition, and there is no other counter-proof.

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant is obliged to pay the heavy equipment rent.

On a different premise, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant directly rescinded the contract and directly executed the instant new construction project is without merit.

The plaintiff also asserts that the defendant agreed to pay the rent for heavy equipment, but the plaintiff submitted it.