beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. On July 11, 2016, the Plaintiff’s assertion entered into a contract with the Defendant to lease construction equipment to the Defendant, and from the above date to December 31, 2016, the Plaintiff leased construction equipment to the Defendant’s construction site from the above date to December 31, 2016, and issued a tax invoice, including the supply price of KRW 2,700,000 on July 31, 2016, and the supply price of KRW 4,00,000 on September 30, 2016, and the supply price of KRW 2,200,000 on October 31, 2016.
In addition, the defendant's representative director and the on-site director agreed not only to pay the above construction equipment usage fees, but also to pay the plaintiff a total of KRW 3,740,000 for the construction equipment usage fees from July 2016 to December 2016. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff a total of KRW 10,920,300 for the construction equipment usage fees and damages for delay.
2. First of all, the judgment is that the construction equipment leasing contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was concluded, and that the Defendant denied the authenticity of the construction equipment leasing contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, there is no evidence to prove the authenticity of the contract, and there is no other evidence to prove that B has the authority to prepare the evidence No. 1, and thus, it cannot be used as evidence, and each of the items of the evidence Nos. 2 through 10 (including the number of pages) of the Plaintiff’s assertion was concluded.
It is insufficient to recognize that the representative director of the defendant and the head of the site have promised to pay the construction equipment usage fees, and there is no other evidence to recognize it.
In addition, just because the Defendant deposited total of KRW 3,740,000 to the Plaintiff on May and June 2016, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff’s construction equipment usage fee.
After all, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.
3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just and reasonable.