1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 42,869,760 as well as 20% per annum from December 24, 2013 to the day of full payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person engaged in the construction equipment leasing business, etc. under the trade name of “C,” and the Defendant is a company engaged in civil engineering and construction business.

B. On September 201, the Defendant received a contract for Dental Improvement Work (hereinafter “instant construction”) from the former North Korean Road Management Office (hereinafter “instant construction”). Around September 201, the Defendant employed E as the head of the instant construction site office.

C. Upon the Plaintiff’s request, the Plaintiff leased construction equipment from November 201 to December 201, 201 at the construction site of this case.

From April 7, 2012 to September 28, 2012, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff a total of KRW 41,650,625 to the Plaintiff.

E. On May 2012, the Defendant subcontracted the instant construction work of reinforced concrete to F (F).

(F) The Plaintiff is currently not paid KRW 11,00,000 for August 2012, KRW 9,831,250 for September 2012, KRW 14,30,00 for October 2012, KRW 4,400,00 for November 4, 2012, and KRW 42,475,00 for December 2012, and KRW 863,510 for construction equipment rent used in the process.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence 1 through 4, Eul's evidence 1 and 2 (including paper numbers), witness G, witness H's partial testimony, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. In the instant case, the Plaintiff claimed that the Defendant is not a person obligated to pay the said money, which is not a person obligated to pay the said money, in addition to the rent for the equipment as stated in Paragraph (f) of Article 1 and the electricity fee (=42,06,250 won).

Therefore, the issue of this case is whether the defendant bears the obligation to pay the above money.

B. The lower judgment as to the issues and the overall purport of the argument in the evidence as seen earlier are acknowledged as follows, and there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the lease of equipment prior to the conclusion of the instant subcontract was made at the Defendant’s request.