1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revoked part shall be dismissed.

1. On February 2012, 2012, the Special Metropolitan Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Special Construction Co., Ltd.”) subcontracted the construction of molds (hereinafter referred to as the “instant construction”) among the new apartment construction works in Ansan-dong Construction Co., Ltd., and directly performed the instant construction works from April 11, 2012. However, around June 25, 2012, the instant construction subcontracted the instant construction to the Defendant.

(Entrys in Evidence A 1, 6, and 7, and the purport of the whole testimony and pleading by a witness of the first instance trial)

2. The parties' assertion

A. On June 17, 2012, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff leased temporary materials (e.g., oil pumps, pipes, poppy, etc.) invested in the construction site of this case to the Defendant. However, the Defendant did not pay KRW 53,783,40 in total of the rent for the said temporary materials generated from June 2012 to August 2012.

Therefore, the defendant is obliged to pay the above temporary materials rent and damages for delay to the plaintiff.

B. The defendant's assertion does not have all the fact that the contract for the lease of temporary materials with the plaintiff was concluded, and since the temporary materials invested at the construction site of this case were entirely supplied for the construction project of detailed construction that contracted the construction of this case, the plaintiff's claim cannot be

3. There is no dispute between the parties to the market, or the fact-finding on Gap's evidence Nos. 3, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3, witness Gap of the first instance court, witness Eul of the first instance court, witness Eul of the first instance court, witness Eul of the first instance court, the fact-finding on the Korea Construction Association of the court of the first instance, and the following circumstances acknowledged by the court appraiser D of the first instance court as a result of the written evidence appraisal of the first instance court (hereinafter "the results of the written evidence appraisal of this case") and the whole arguments are insufficient to acknowledge that the lease contract was concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant as alleged by the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case of this case is without

First of all, the contract of this case is the temporary material lease agreement No. 3 submitted by the plaintiff.