1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 22,050,000 as well as its related amount from October 28, 2014.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 21, 2013, the Plaintiff is a person who operates a construction machinery business that leases construction equipment and provides services, and the Defendant was awarded a contract for the construction work “the construction work in question” (hereinafter “the instant construction work”), which is the first day of the 2013 South Korea, as the construction work cost of KRW 187,224,000 (the construction cost was changed to KRW 163,108,000) from Jeollabuk-do.

B. From June 9, 2013 to August 6, 2013, the Plaintiff provided services by inserting construction equipment DX140 (Motor vehicle number F) and Twitlers at the instant construction site (hereinafter “instant usage fee”) with a total of KRW 22,050,000 (hereinafter “instant usage fee”) from June 9, 2013 to June 6, 2013.

C. E and G, who are the field manager of the instant construction project, has supervised the overall construction site, provided that the J of the Defendant’s staff member reported the instant construction project as the field agent.

Under the direction or supervision of the Plaintiff, H signed the Plaintiff’s work on behalf of the Plaintiff in the column of “field manager (construction machine lessee)” on the “construction machine lease contract and work confirmation (A evidence 1; hereinafter “work confirmation document”)” on the same day. However, during the period during which E was a field manager, H signed on behalf of E.

The main contents of the work confirmations shall be as follows:

On-site name: A prime contractor in Ulsan Special Metropolitan City: The fact that there is no dispute (based on recognition) that a field officer or a working person signing this Agreement represents the representative of the contracted construction company, Gap evidence 1, 2, and 7 (including a provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 through 3, the fact inquiry into the Province Forest Environment Research Institute in Jeollabuk-do, the purport of the entire pleadings, as a result of the fact inquiry into the Province Forest Environment Research Institute in this Court.

2. The gist of the Parties’ arguments.