1. The Defendant calculated the Plaintiff at the rate of KRW 52,678,972 and the annual rate of KRW 15% from June 4, 2018 to the date of full payment.

1. As to the cause of claim

A. (i) From June 23, 2016 to May 4, 2017, the Plaintiff leased oil pumps, pipes, stacks, man-coppy, etc. to the Defendant, which are temporary materials at the D site of Ansan-si, Ansan-si, Annyang-si, Annyang-si.

Luxembourg returned temporary materials to the Plaintiff from September 9, 2016 to May 6, 2017.

Abstract 82,965,055 won (including value added tax) used by the Defendant, and the market value of the temporary materials lost and lost by the Defendant is 11,384,000 won.

• The Defendant paid KRW 85,327,504 to the Plaintiff by September 8, 2017.

[Evidence A] Under the evidence evidence Nos. 7 and 8, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 5,934,057 (i.e., KRW 91,261,561- 85,327,504) and KRW 11,384,00 in total at the market price of the lost and lost materials.

B. (i) The Plaintiff leased temporary materials to the Defendant at the Gwanak-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City E site from March 16, 2017 to September 25, 2017.

The Defendant returned temporary materials to the Plaintiff 13 times from May 15, 2017 to January 10, 2018.

Article 38,602,250 Won(42,475, including value added tax) used by the Defendant, and the market value of the temporary materials lost and lost by the Defendant is 5,453,90 won.

• The Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 11,000,000 over twice.

[Evidence A] Under the evidence evidence Nos. 12 and 13, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 31,462,475 (=42,462,475- 11,00,000) and the total amount of KRW 5,453,90 in the market price of the lost and lost materials.

2. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserts that all temporary materials were returned.

However, although the supply of materials is confirmed as acceptance certificate in the contract between the plaintiff and the defendant (Evidence A No. 1), the above assertion is without merit, since the defendant did not provide evidence to prove the return fact, such as acceptance certificate.

3. According to the conclusion, the defendant.