1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 154,123,778 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from January 3, 2017 to the date of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is engaged in construction machinery rental business, and the defendant operates construction business, etc.

B. From January 2013 to December 31, 2016, the Plaintiff leased dump trucks, digging machines, etc. necessary for B site and C site to the Defendant. From July 2013 to December 2013, the Plaintiff, who was supplied with the Defendant, generated a tax invoice of KRW 52,640,478 in total, KRW 385,463,922 from February 2014 to December 2014, KRW 971,938,278, and KRW 350,213,260 in total, KRW 1,760,255,938 from January 2015 to December 31, 2016, respectively.

The Defendant paid KRW 1,606,132,160 out of the above usage fees to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid equipment fee of KRW 154,123,778 and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from January 3, 2017 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of the original copy of the payment order, to the day of full payment.

B. Determination on the Defendant’s argument 1) The Defendant’s fee to be paid is KRW 140,386,278, and the difference between the amount of the tax invoice issued by the Defendant and the amount of the actual payment of the equipment substituted by the equipment substituted by the Defendant (Evidence No. 2) submitted by the Defendant is a waiver of the amount, and the settlement of accounts is completed by the Plaintiff with the Plaintiff’s consent. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion that the amount higher than the amount recognized by the Defendant is not acceptable. However, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. 2) The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff repaid the Plaintiff KRW 20,452,00 on October 11, 203 and September 25, 2015, and Nonparty D paid KRW 10,300,000 to the Plaintiff. However, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the reimbursement was made, and it is not acceptable.

3. Conclusion