1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 62,542,00 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from August 10, 2016 to the day of complete payment.

1. In light of the following facts: (a) there is no dispute over the cause of the claim; (b) comprehensively taking into account the respective descriptions in Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 5, and Eul evidence No. 2, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on November 23, 2015 with the condition that the Defendant would lease the temporary materials at the Pyeongtaek-si A, which the Defendant is doing; (c) leased the temporary materials to the Defendant from November 30, 2015; and (d) on July 18, 2016, the rent and the loss amount of the materials incurred until the final return of the temporary materials was made; (d) the amount of KRW 91,542,00,000 for the materials rent; and (e) the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 20,000 with the materials rent of KRW 20,000 for the materials on April 15, 2016, the Plaintiff received reimbursement of KRW 290,000 for the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of the materials rent and the amount of KRW 62,542,00 (i.e., KRW 91,542,00 - KRW 29,000) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from August 10, 2016 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case.

As to this, the defendant argued that the rent for temporary materials occurred after April 30, 2016 should be claimed B because the contract method should be changed from the defendant's original contractor B to the direct payment. However, there is no evidence to prove that there was an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant on April 30, 2016 that the defendant would not pay the rent for materials after April 30, 2016. Thus, there was no such agreement between the defendant and the defendant for domestic affairs.

Even if the defendant's obligation to rent temporary materials is not extinguished solely for that reason, the defendant's obligation to rent temporary materials is not extinguished.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

2. Conclusion of the Plaintiff’s claim