1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of Gap evidence No. 1, Gap evidence No. 2 (the same as Eul evidence No. 1), Gap evidence No. 3, Eul evidence No. 4, and Eul evidence No. 2.

On January 22, 2013, the Plaintiff engaged in construction machinery rental business in the name of B, determined one excavated machine (type (specification) DX220LC, registration number C, hereinafter “instant excavated machine”) to the Defendant as KRW 20,00,000 per month from January 22, 2013 to January 21, 2014, and rent amounting to KRW 20,000 per month (value-added tax separately).

B. From January 17, 2013, the above lease agreement was terminated on March 9, 2013 while the instant excavated machine was put into the construction site and used by the original Defendant upon agreement.

C. On March 9, 2013, in the process of lifting the instant excavated machine at the underground of the said construction site, the instant excavated machine was damaged by the wall of the underground surface, H beam beam, etc. (hereinafter “instant accident”). The Plaintiff spent KRW 11,936,650 in total, including KRW 9,901,650, Jul. 23, 2013 for the repair of the instant excavated machine due to the instant accident, and KRW 11,936,650, Jul. 31, 2013.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. (1) As to the assertion of the agreement on the settlement of repair cost, the plaintiff asserts that the defendant's on-site captain E is liable to pay the plaintiff the repair cost of the excavated machine 11,936,650 won and damages for delay since the accident of this case occurred due to the plaintiff's fault on the part of the defendant's employee F. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the repair cost of the excavated machine of this case and the damages for delay.

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that, not only is the head of the defendant's site, but also the defendant did not agree to pay the repair cost of the excavated machine of this case to the plaintiff side, and that he paid rent exceeding the actual period of use of the excavated machine of this case around March 2013 in lieu of the repair cost.