beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
3. The decision of the court of first instance is in accordance with paragraph 1.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On November 5, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement on the following heavy equipment between the Defendant and the Defendant with respect to the tramway tracks (B/H 300LC, vehicle number B):
(hereinafter “instant contract”). The lease site C Line Improvement Works (2 Sections) rental period from November 5, 201 to June 30, 2013, the monthly rent of KRW 7,500,000 (the monthly rent of KRW 7,500,000 (the Defendant’s separate charge for oil costs) base hours (the 25th day of each month) daily operating hours of KRW 200 hours from November 5, 201 to June 30, 2013.
B. From November 5, 201 to December 2012, 201, the Plaintiff posted D, a major equipment engineer, at the site of C’s model improvement works. On December 31, 2012, the said construction was suspended.
C. The Defendant paid to the Plaintiff the rent for the equipment from November 5, 2011 to June 2012.
[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2, purport of whole pleadings
2. On July 8, 2012, the amount of unpaid rents (won) paid for the Plaintiff’s claim: (a) 47,756,504,000 4,998,000 on August 8, 2012; (b) 8,250,000 on September 8, 2012; (c) 8,569,000 on October 8, 2012; (d) 6,160,000 on December 6, 2012; (e) 6,825,500 on December 6, 200; (e) 47,756,504,004,000 KRW 4,000,000,000, KRW 200,000 on the Plaintiff’s claim; and (e) the Defendant is not obligated to pay rent (i.e., KRW 605,750,7405,7545,205,7507,27.
3. The defendant's assertion and defense
A. As to the assertion on double payment of labor costs, the Defendant also included the wages of the heavy equipment driving engineer in the rent for the heavy equipment against the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s wages for the heavy equipment driving engineer should be paid by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff’s heavy equipment driving engineer work as the equipment engineer from January 2012 to October 2012 and the Plaintiff’s work as a general worker also from the Defendant.