The judgment of the first instance is revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All costs of litigation shall be borne by the plaintiff.

the purport and purpose of the claim;

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who engages in construction machinery leasing business, etc. under the trade name of “C”, and the Defendant is a company that engages in construction business, civil engineering business, etc.

B. From August 2016, the Plaintiff leased d and dump trucks and dump trucks at the construction site at the military unit located in the reinforcement military unit that the Defendant performed with a subcontract.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Eul evidence 1 to Eul evidence 3

2. Assertion and determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) from September 2, 2016 to July 22, 2018, the Plaintiff leased one dump truck (one day rental fee of KRW 430,00,000) to the Defendant, two dump trucks (one day rental fee of KRW 500,000,000, and one value added tax).

The Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the rental fee of KRW 20,350,000 from May 2, 2018 to July 22, 2018 as well as the delayed damages.

(2) The Defendant’s assertion is that construction machinery was leased from the Plaintiff during the period from August 2016 to December 2017, and construction machinery was not leased from January 2018, and that there was no fact that the Defendant set the rental fee at the amount claimed by the Plaintiff.

B. The reasoning of the evidence No. 1 through No. 4 reveals that the Plaintiff lent dump trucks and cump trucks to the Defendant at an amount as alleged by the Plaintiff, as between May 2, 2018 and July 22, 2018.

No. 1, 3, and 4 are documents that can be unilaterally prepared by the plaintiff, and there is no other objective evidence (such as the defendant's certificate of work confirmation) supporting the content, and it is difficult to recognize facts in accordance with the document.

Rather, according to the evidence evidence No. 4, the defendant suspended construction on the ground of the winter season around December 2017, and thereafter, it appears that the plaintiff did not rent dump trucks and dump trucks from the plaintiff). The plaintiff's assertion is without merit without examining any further.

3. Conclusion Plaintiff