1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. A. Around July 2015, the Plaintiff, who is engaged in the construction machinery rental business under the trade name of C, was awarded a contract from D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) for the ground-breaking construction of the building E (hereinafter “ground-breaking construction”) among the earth construction of the building E (hereinafter “D”).

B. 1) D is F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) on October 26, 2015.

) Of the soil works of the said new construction and the installation work of soil facilities (including dismantling work of provisional facilities; hereinafter referred to as “construction work of soil mounds, etc.”)

(2) On January 31, 2016, D drafted a written agreement on the waiver of construction and the settlement of accounts with respect to construction work costs of KRW 110 million, the construction period from October 27, 2015 to November 15, 2015. The Plaintiff entered into the subcontract as joint and several sureties on the said written subcontract. 2) D, with respect to construction works, such as F and soil shield, (i) “The settlement of accounts and construction works, in the waiver of construction due to F conditions, shall be waived, and (ii) D, as the principal contractor, agrees to place an order for the remaining construction work to a third party.”

3) D) April 8, 2016, G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”)

With respect to construction work, including soil bags, the subcontract was concluded by setting the construction cost of KRW 40 million, the construction period from April 10, 2016 to May 31, 2016. [The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, each entry in Gap evidence 2 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings.]

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff would accept construction directly from D, such as soil removal, etc., and the construction cost was determined as KRW 1110 million on October 26, 2015 and entered into a subcontract in F’s name. As such, the said construction cost includes KRW 40 million for the Plaintiff’s use of equipment for construction, such as soil removal, etc.

However, in fact, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to the user fee of the equipment, as the Defendant performed the construction work, such as soil bags, in the name of F and G, and received all the construction cost from D.

(b).