beta
Text
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is running the construction equipment operation business under the trade name of “C”.
B. On August 27, 2016, the Defendant entered into a construction contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) with E, which stipulates that E shall pay E the amount of KRW 59,900,000 (excluding value-added tax) in return for the blasting volume of 26.05 cubic meters in three parcels, etc., including the petition F, Cheongju-si, Cheongju-si, and the Defendant shall pay E the amount of the said price.
C. On September 29, 2016, the Defendant paid KRW 45,100,000 out of the above payment to E. D.
Defendant and E agreed on February 11, 2019 to extend the instant contract by April 30, 2019.
E. From February 2019 to April 2019, the Plaintiff lent a tent, etc. to the said blasting construction site.
F. On February 28, 2019, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice for KRW 2,511,740 on February 2019 with the Defendant, and the Defendant paid KRW 2,511,740 to the Plaintiff on March 13, 2019.
G. On March 31, 2019, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice for KRW 9,350,000 on March 31, 2019 with the Defendant, and issued a tax invoice for KRW 10,010,000 on April 30, 2019 with the Defendant.
[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, Eul evidence 1 through 3, Eul evidence 7 (including paper numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply)
(2) Each entry and the purport of the whole pleading
2. The parties' assertion
A. (1) Upon the Defendant’s request, the Plaintiff leased a ceiling factory cost, etc. to the said blasting construction site. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the equipment user fee of KRW 19,360,00 (i.e., the equipment user fee of KRW 9,350,00 on March 3, 2019).
(2) In addition, even if there is no direct contractual relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the Defendant agreed to pay the Plaintiff the fee for the use of equipment instead, so the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the fee for the use of equipment.