1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 9, 2014, Plaintiff A entered into a contract with the Defendant for a project to improve the Busan City Sewage culvert (hereinafter “instant construction project”), and performed the construction work by using construction equipment, such as dump trucks and dump trucks.

B. On October 31, 2014, Plaintiff A issued three copies of tax invoices, including a tax invoice with the supply price of KRW 20 million as of October 31, 2014, the supply price of KRW 20 million as of November 30, 2014, the supply price of value-added tax of KRW 20 million as of November 30, 2014, the tax invoice with the value-added tax of KRW 20 million as of December 31, 2014, the supply price of KRW 20 million as of December 31, 2014, and the tax invoice with the value-added tax of KRW 20 million as of December 30, 2014, and Plaintiff B issued one tax invoice with the supply price of KRW 10 million as of December 30, 2014, and the value-added tax of KRW 1 million as of December 30, 2014.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of evidence Nos. 2 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiffs A entered into a contract with the defendant for the construction of various facilities, such as sewage culvert, in relation to the instant construction project. The above contract includes not only the cost of the construction of the facilities, but also the cost of the construction equipment loan, etc. to transport and install the facilities.

Plaintiff

A actually carried out the construction work by inserting equipment and driving engineer.

Plaintiff

B also puts construction equipment according to the equipment leasing contract with the defendant.

Although the volume of the facility installed in accordance with the instant construction project was settled, the cost for the use of the construction equipment invested in the other construction project has not been paid even though it should be paid separately.

Plaintiff

A issued a tax invoice of KRW 66 million in total, while Plaintiff B issued a tax invoice of KRW 11 million in total, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff A with construction equipment loans of KRW 66 million, KRW 11 million in total, and delay damages.

B. The Plaintiff B did not enter into a equipment rental contract only with the Defendant, but did not enter into a equipment rental contract.