1. The defendant shall list the amount of prize in the attached Form to the plaintiff (Appointeds) and the designated parties (other than the designated parties B).

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. As the Plaintiff’s assertion and the designated parties leased dump trucks to the Defendant and transported aggregate, earth and sand, etc., the Plaintiff’s assertion and the designated parties sought the payment of rent against the Defendant.

B. According to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 1 through 7 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 7 (including paper numbers), and witness I’s witness I’s testimony and arguments, the plaintiff and the selected parties agreed to lease d, E, F, C, G, and H (hereinafter “designated parties D, etc.”) to put them into the “construction site for the J General Industrial Complex” by leasing dump trucks to the defendant, and carry out the work of transporting aggregate, soil, etc. with dump trucks at the above construction site for the same period as indicated in the attached amount of rental period table, the amount of rent against the defendant, such as the plaintiff and the selected parties, such as D, can be recognized as identical to that indicated in the same Table.

On the other hand, the plaintiff is paid KRW 2,00,000 among the rent that the defendant paid from the defendant, and the defendant decided to deduct KRW 3,660,850 from the rent, and the Selection E is entitled to deduct the above transit price from the rent of KRW 3,003,398, and the Selection G is entitled to deduct the above transit price of KRW 2,224,80 from the rent.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay each corresponding amount and damages for delay on the claim in the attached Form No. 1, unless there is a special reason to the plaintiff and the selected parties D, etc.

C. Each description of the evidence Nos. 8 and 18, as to the Selection B’s claim for rent for the same year from July 31, 2012

9. It is not sufficient to recognize that a dump truck was leased to the Defendant until November 199 and carried out work at the above construction site, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for this part is without merit.

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion