1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid in addition to the following shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the facts of recognition and the purport of the parties’ assertion is as follows: (a) in addition to the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance, the following “uium installation” is deemed as “300 square meters x 200 square meters x 60 square meters ” under the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) inasmuch as the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance

2. Determination

A. As to the claim for the rent of a vehicle, the following circumstances can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the facts acknowledged as the owner of the vehicle rent and the purport of the entire arguments, namely, ① the construction work executed around the construction site of this case (Evidence A), the recycling aggregate, banking aggregate, and landscape stone installation are stated as separate; ② the subcontract agreement entered into with D companies (F and E) also provides recycling aggregate. In light of the construction cost of the said subcontract (11,500,000 square meters and size), it is not deemed that the Plaintiff agreed to bear recycling aggregate and transportation expenses up to 11,50 square meters within the construction cost of the instant construction contract (11,500 square meters) in light of the aforementioned construction work cost of the said subcontract, ③ the Defendant was supplied from H companies without compensation, but the Plaintiff was required to transport aggregate and waste to H companies at the construction site of this case, ④ the Plaintiff’s demand for recycling aggregate and waste transport charges up to 10.7 J. 2 and the Defendant’s demand for recycling aggregate transport charges up to 10.7.