1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant’s KRW 23,39,800 for the Plaintiff and its related expenses from March 14, 2015 to September 2015.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 2013, the Defendant entered into a contract for construction works with the former Do Road Safety Management Office and the former Do Road (hereinafter “instant construction works”) with the content that the construction cost of KRW 876,545,000 (including value-added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply), the contract term from September 6, 2013 to June 30, 2014 (hereinafter “the instant prime contract”) and entered into a subcontract for construction works with one stock company (the former : Panan Construction Co., Ltd.; hereinafter “I Construction”) around that time to collectively subcontract the instant construction works (hereinafter “instant prime contract”).

(hereinafter referred to as “instant subcontract”: Provided, That the Defendant and Han Construction Co., Ltd. drafted a construction subcontract agreement for the construction of reinforced concrete between September 9, 2013 and June 30, 2014, which stipulates that the Defendant shall re-subcontract the construction of reinforced concrete among the instant construction works by setting the construction cost of KRW 599,800,000 and the contract period of the instant construction to June 30, 2014.

B. On May 2013, the Plaintiff agreed to lease construction equipment, such as digging machines, etc. (hereinafter “construction equipment”) at the instant construction site from May 2013 to February 2014 at the request of the Defendant, one construction employee, who claimed that he/she is the Defendant’s site manager, and to pay rent.

(hereinafter “instant contract”). C.

Accordingly, from May 2013 to February 5, 2014, the Plaintiff leased the instant construction equipment at the instant construction site, and the Defendant paid KRW 15,500,000 as the rent for October 2013.

However, the Plaintiff was not paid the rent of KRW 23,339,80 for the construction equipment leased from November 2, 2013 to February 5, 2014.

However, with respect to the settlement of the above rent, the Plaintiff issued an electronic tax invoice stating the Defendant as the recipient of the above B’s request, and the construction equipment is leased and work.