1. The plaintiff (appointed)'s claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

1. The Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the designated parties (hereinafter “Plaintiff, etc.”) provided construction services by inserting construction equipment, such as digging machines, etc. at the “G factory construction site” located in the Gyeongbuk-gun, the Defendant ordered the construction (hereinafter “instant construction”). However, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) did not receive the cost of using equipment, including KRW 15,70,00 for the Plaintiff (Appointed Party), KRW 9,570,00 for the Appointed Party C, KRW 4,950,00 for the Appointed Party D, KRW 7,150,00 for the Appointed Party E, and KRW 37,370,000 for the sum of KRW 37,70,000 for the Appointed-gun, which was ordered by the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including family number; hereinafter the same shall apply), witness H's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff (Appointed Party)’s assertion 1) leased construction equipment from the Plaintiff, etc., and used it at the instant construction site. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff, etc. totaling KRW 37,370,000 to the Plaintiff, etc. of the cost of using equipment. (2) On December 2014, 2014, the Plaintiff, etc. committed construction with the Defendant beliefing and executing the commitment to pay the cost of using equipment directly, and issued a tax invoice equivalent to the cost of using equipment from the Defendant. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay

B. The Defendant issued a tax invoice for the use of equipment to the Plaintiff, etc. on December 31, 2014, when comprehensively taking account of whether the Defendant is a party to the construction equipment lease agreement, and the purport of the entire pleadings in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 7, the Defendant stated that the Defendant contracted the instant construction to the J that operates “I,” including the part of earth works related to the use of the instant equipment, and that the Plaintiff et al. was paid the cost of equipment directly from the Defendant, in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings, although it is acknowledged that the Defendant deposited the money equivalent to the value of the additional tax on the tax invoice, and in full view of the purport of the entire arguments in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6.