beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 5,082,682 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 5% per annum from February 10, 2015 to August 19, 2015.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. The Plaintiff asserted that around July 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a contract with the Defendant to lease the temporary materials, such as uniforms, at the studio Construction Site at Sejong-si, and to pay rent from the Defendant, and leased the temporary materials pursuant to the contract, from July 12, 2013 to April 30, 2014. The rent incurred during the above period is KRW 126,865,392; the Defendant received KRW 65,958,009 in cash; and the Defendant received KRW 11,342,50,50 for the sale of the leased temporary materials, and received reimbursement of KRW 77,300,50 for the purchase price.
The defendant asserts that the party who entered into a contract for the lease of temporary materials with the plaintiff is not the defendant but the defendant's subordinate business operator Eul, and that the defendant, until October 31, 2013, shall dispose of the rent for the temporary materials used at the studio Construction Construction Site in Sejong City, in full, in full, to the plaintiff. The defendant asserts that the rent for the temporary materials used at the studio Construction Construction Site in Sejong City was paid directly to the plaintiff, and that
B. In full view of the respective descriptions and arguments in the evidence No. 3-1, No. 3-2, No. 2, No. 6, No. 7, and No. 1-2, No. 2, No. 2-1 through No. 3, and No. 2-3, and No. 3, the lower court concluded a contract with the Defendant and the Plaintiff on July 2013 under which the Defendant and the Plaintiff should lease any temporary material, such as oil pumps, to the Plaintiff at the site of the studio Construction Works located at Sejong-si, and the Defendant should pay the rent to the Plaintiff in return, and leased the temporary material pursuant to the contract from July 12, 2013 to April 30, 2014. The rent incurred during the above period can be recognized as the fact that the Plaintiff leased the temporary material that exceeds the Defendant, and there is no lack to accept the evidence No. 1, which corresponds to the fact that the Plaintiff leased it to the Defendant, as stated in the evidence No. 2 through No. 4 (including each number).
On the other hand, the above evidence is examined.