1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. On March 14, 2012, the Defendant (formerly, hereinafter “former Construction”) subcontracted the construction of reinforced concrete to KRW 209,00,000 (including value-added tax) for the new construction of C among the new construction works ordered by the Newan Military Administration (hereinafter “Large Industrial Development”) to the Daean Industrial Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Moan Industrial Development”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Eul evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. Judgment as to the main claim

A. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff: (a) leased each of the materials listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant materials”) from, or agreed on a direct payment for, the rent from, the Plaintiff; (b) thus, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the rent of KRW 22,100,00 for the 13-month period from June 21, 2013 to July 21, 2014 (i.e., KRW 1,70,000 per month x 13 months); and (c) deliver the instant materials; and (d) pay the amount at the rate of KRW 1,70,000 per month from July 22, 2014 to the completion date of delivery of the instant materials.

1) On December 20, 201, the Plaintiff leased the instant materials to the Defendant at KRW 1,700,000 per rent. 2) On December 20, 2011, the Plaintiff leased the instant materials to KRW 1,700,000 per rent, and the Defendant agreed to pay the said materials directly to the Defendant in lieu of the development of the light industry.

(b) Nos. 1 through 4 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) with respect to the first argument

A) Each entry and the fact-finding conducted by the court of first instance with respect to the new draft group of the court of first instance are insufficient to recognize the fact that the Plaintiff leased the instant materials to the Defendant, and there is no other evidence. Rather, according to the overall purport of the statement in Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 6, and witness D’s testimony and arguments, the Plaintiff appears to have leased or sold the instant materials to develop the light industry. Therefore, there is no reasonable ground for the above argument regarding the second argument, the Defendant directly purchased or sold the instant materials instead of the light industry development, which is the difference between the instant materials to be supplied to the Plaintiff.