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. Basic facts

A. C agreed to undertake a new construction project of multi-family housing in Gyeonggi-gu D and E (hereinafter “instant construction”) and entered into a management-type land trust agreement with F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”), and set the instant construction project amounting to KRW 9 billion in construction cost and the completion completion plan as January 18, 2019 to G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”).

B. On January 10, 2018, the Defendant was awarded a subcontract by G during the instant construction period of KRW 330 million and the construction period of construction from January 1, 2018 to March 31, 2019, for earth works and ancillary civil works.

C. Around March 14, 2018, the Plaintiff leased the soft machine at the construction site of this case at the rate of KRW 500,000 per day (excluding value-added tax).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with H, a field manager of the Defendant, and leased the digging machine to the instant construction site. As such, the Defendant should pay 50,000 won (including value-added tax) and damages for delay thereof to the Plaintiff.

B. On March 12, 2018, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant: (a) purchased steel at the construction site of this case; and (b) did not lease the digging season from the Plaintiff on or around March 14, 2018; and (c) H, which entered into a digging season lease agreement by the Plaintiff, as an employee of G, leased the digging season to G.

3. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments by Gap evidence No. 1, around March 14, 2018, the following facts are revealed in the tenant column of the Standard Construction Machinery Lease Contract (Evidence No. 1) prepared by the plaintiff from the construction site of this case, stating the signature of "H" and the telephone number of "H", and H is a person responsible for the field work of G and is not the defendant's employee.

In addition to the above facts of recognition, it is recognized by the evidence set forth above.