1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant subcontracted civil engineering works among the construction works, which were executed by the construction works of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building.

B. The Plaintiff, a person who engages in construction machinery rental business under the trade name of “C,” and leased cherf for the said civil engineering construction work from May 2015 to June 30, 2015, and was not paid rent of KRW 16,847,800.

C. Due construction did not provide the Plaintiff with a payment guarantee for the rent of the above digging season while leasing the above digging season from the Plaintiff.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Entry of Evidence A No. 1 and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. (1) Where a contractor fails to inform a subcontractor of a payment guarantee letter issued under Article 34(2) of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, a subcontractor may directly claim a subcontract price to a project owner pursuant to Article 35(2)5 of the same Act, which shall apply mutatis mutandis to a construction machinery rental business operator pursuant to Article 32(4) of the same Act.

In such cases, pursuant to Article 32 (4) 3 of the same Act, "project owner" shall be deemed "person who has contracted construction works to a constructor who has concluded a contract with a construction machinery rental business operator", "contractor" shall be deemed "contractor who has concluded a contract with a construction machinery rental business operator", "subcontractor" shall be deemed "construction machinery rental business operator", and "subcontract price" shall be deemed "construction machinery rental price".

According to the above provisions, the Plaintiff (the “subcontractor”) who is a construction machinery rental business operator (the “contractor”) may directly claim against the Defendant (the “contractor” as referred to in the above provision) who has contracted the construction machinery rental cost (the “subcontract”) for the fixed construction (the “contractor” as referred to in the above provision).

Therefore, the defendant shall pay 16,847,800 won to the plaintiff for the fixed construction of a mining season and the defendant for this.