1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. On November 5, 201, from November 4, 2011 to November 4, 2013, KRW 285,600,000 per month from November 5, 2013 to December 81, 2013 to December 61, 2013, the Plaintiff, collectively, is the Defendant’s representative director, who owned KRW 294,000,000 to December 6, 200 to December 31, 2013, KRW 5 tons per day, and KRW 0,000 to December 6, 204,00 to KRW 294,00,000,000 to KRW 05,00 to December 28, 2013, KRW 00 to KRW 8,000 to KRW 50,00,00 per month, respectively.

(2) The Plaintiff provided fuel supply contract with the Defendant from January 1, 2009 to December 2012, 201 after concluding an oil supply contract with the Defendant, and the unpaid fuel price is KRW 137,464,300, which is the total amount of KRW 654,100,00.

3) Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the total sum of KRW 50 million and the above oil payment of KRW 187,464,300, which is part of the above equipment rent, and damages for delay thereof. (B) Even if the lease or oil supply contract for each of the instant equipment claimed by the Plaintiff is not deemed valid, as long as the Defendant used each of the instant equipment owned by the Plaintiff and used the oil supplied by the Plaintiff, so long as the Defendant used the instant equipment owned by the Plaintiff and used the oil, the Defendant included the fuel payment for the rent for each of the instant equipment (including the

Of KRW 976,698,00, 187,464,300, which is a part of the deposit, and the delay damages therefor, shall be refunded in unjust enrichment.

2. Judgment on the main argument

A. Determination of the claim for rent of each of the instant equipment is based on the number of evidence Nos. 4 and 7.