1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except where the defendant added "2. Additional Judgment" as to the argument added in the trial of the court of first instance, and therefore, it is identical to the part concerning the reasons of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. As to the assertion that an additional determination should be made (as to the assertion that the difference should be reduced)

A. The Defendant asserts that two different values of B/H 06W equipment and B/H 017 construction machinery, which are described in the work log, were inputs by only one Plaintiff as a construction machinery pilot who will operate two identical equipment as above, and that the two parts of the Plaintiff mixed equipment are operated and work together, the total rent of the two parts of the equipment cannot be paid, and at least 50% of the daily rent of each equipment should be deducted.

B. We do not have any dispute between the parties as to the facts that the Plaintiff operated B/H 06W equipment and B/H 017 construction machinery at the construction site of this case.

However, according to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, it can be recognized that the defendant's on-site manager prepared and delivered "standard construction machine lease contract", which is the total of 27,725,000 won from May 29, 2017 to August 16, 2017 as to the plaintiff's work amounting to 27,725,00 won from May 30 to August 18, 2017 (excluding value-added tax) and the evidence submitted by G witnesses and other parties submitted by the plaintiff are insufficient to acknowledge that there was a lack of evidence to acknowledge that there was an agreement between the parties to pay a reduction by applying the standards different from those stated in the above work completion agreement and construction machine lease agreement.

The defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. If so, the first instance judgment is legitimate.