1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. Upon D’s request, the actual operator of C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”), the Plaintiff leased excavated machines and 15 tons of a dump truck from July 21, 2014 to August 14, 2014 at the site of the construction work for creating a housing site of 45,362 square meters in Chuncheon-si, Chuncheon-si (hereinafter “instant construction work”) performed by C (hereinafter “instant construction work”). The Plaintiff was signed by G at the site site at each time of lease.

However, C did not pay the above construction machinery rent, and H acquired the above construction machinery rent on August 6, 2014 and changed its trade name to the defendant. As such, C is obliged to pay the above construction machinery rent to the Plaintiff.

B. Even if the defendant's liability is not recognized due to household takeover C, the plaintiff was aware that D and G at the construction site of this case were the representative of C and the site manager, so the defendant bears the responsibility for expression representation under Article 126 of the Civil Code.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of whether the Defendant is a party to a construction machinery rental contract, as to whether the Plaintiff is a party to the construction machinery lease contract, the written evidence Nos. 4-1 through 19, Gap evidence No. 5, and Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the entire pleadings is as follows: (a) the Plaintiff stated “C” in each construction machinery work contract “site name” column from July 21, 2014 to August 14, 2014 held by him/her; and (b) signed G in “site manager” column; (c) the Plaintiff issued each tax invoice of KRW 250,000 and KRW 6,050 on July 31, 2014; and (d) H accepted the trade name on August 6, 2014; and (e) changed the Defendant’s representative director to “B” to the Defendant Company, thereby recognizing the fact that the Defendant’s representative director, etc. is operating.

However, in full view of the evidence Nos. 6, 8, and 9 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the evidence Nos. 1 and 5, and the testimony of a witness witness D at the trial, the construction machinery was leased to the construction site of this case including the plaintiff, etc.