beta
Text
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The plaintiff is a person who operates construction machinery leasing business under the trade name of "C", and the defendant is a person working as the director of the Corporation in D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "D").
B. Around November 2013, Sejong Comprehensive Mining Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Seoul Comprehensive Mining Co., Ltd.”) awarded a contract for reinforced concrete construction (hereinafter “the instant construction”) among the construction of “F apartment” on the ground of Gyeonggi-si E, Gyeonggi-do, for KRW 900 million, to D, but reversed the said contract.
C. From November 26, 2013 to December 5, 2013, G for the operation of the oil pressure season owned by the Plaintiff was the construction site of the instant construction site to the end of the oil pressure season.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 9, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 4-1 to 11, Eul evidence 5, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff asserted that construction machinery was leased to the Defendant from November 26, 2013 to December 5, 2013.
Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the rent of KRW 5,940,000 (=600,000 x 9 days) and damages for delay.
B. The defendant's assertion is only the director of D's construction division, and there was no personal lease of construction machinery from the plaintiff.
The party that actually leased construction machinery from the Plaintiff is a small comprehensive construction.
C. On November 28, 2013, the court below found that the Defendant stated “B” in the “resident confirmation column” of the Standard Contract for Construction Machinery Lease (Evidence No. 1-3) as “B” as of November 28, 2013, but recognized the following as adding the entire purport of the pleadings to the testimony of Gap evidence Nos. 1-1 through 9, Eul evidence Nos. 4-1 through 11, Eul evidence Nos. 6, 7-1, 2-1, 6, and 7-2, and witness H and I in the trial. In other words, the court below stated the “B” column of the “original construction” in the “Standard Contract for Construction Machinery Lease (Evidence No. 1-1 to 9) and J not only the Defendant but also D’s field employees.