beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The facts constituting the following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the following facts: (a) there is no dispute between the parties; or (b) evidence Nos. 1 to 7; and (c) evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including additional numbers); and (c) witness G of the first instance trial and H (other than the non-trusted part) the purport of the entire pleadings.
The plaintiff is a person engaged in the business of leasing construction equipment in the trade name of "C", and the defendant is a corporation established for the purpose of civil engineering, construction work, etc.
B. On September 201, the Defendant received a contract for Dental Improvement Work (hereinafter “instant construction”) from the former North Korean Road Management Office (hereinafter “instant construction”). Around September 201, the Defendant employed E as the head of the instant construction site office.
C. Upon the Plaintiff’s request, the Plaintiff leased construction equipment from November 201 to December 201, 201 at the construction site of this case.
From April 7, 2012 to September 28, 2012, the Plaintiff received a total of KRW 41,650,625 from the Defendant for the rent of equipment.
E. On May 7, 2012, the Defendant subcontracted the instant construction work of reinforced concrete to F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”).
(F) As of August 2012, the Plaintiff did not receive KRW 42,475,250,000, total of KRW 11,000,000, KRW 9,831,250 for September 2012, KRW 14,30,000 for October 2012, KRW 4,400,00 for November 2012, and KRW 2,475,000 for December 2, 2012, and construction equipment rent of KRW 42,06,250 for construction equipment used in the process, from November 201 to December 201.
2. Determination:
A. Whether the Defendant is liable to pay equipment rent, etc. (1) The Plaintiff’s lease contract between the Defendant and the Defendant is not disputed as to the fact that the Plaintiff had already leased equipment at the request of E prior to the conclusion of the instant subcontract between the Defendant and F, and according to the evidence No. 4, the Plaintiff and the Defendant around the time when the Plaintiff leased equipment at the first construction site of this case.