1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff falling under the order of payment under paragraph (2) is revoked.

2.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 17, 2015, the Plaintiff operated the construction equipment leasing business, etc. under the trade name of “B”. On April 17, 2015, the Plaintiff concluded a construction equipment leasing contract (hereinafter “instant lease contract”) with the Defendant on a monthly rent of KRW 4.7 million (excluding value-added tax) from April 2015 to June 2016, the lease term of KRW 14 months from April 2015 to June 2016, the lease term of the lease, and the site and the site of the use of the special forest industry (hereinafter “large forest industry”) under this Part, with the construction equipment (hereinafter “instant lease contract”) from the date of passing the regular inspection of an official agency to the date of cancelling the site. The special agreement was concluded as follows (hereinafter “instant special agreement”).

(1) The responsibility of the defendant shall be to examine equipment for the substitute forest industry, which is a contractor.

(2) The initial date in reckoning rents shall be May 15, 2015.

B. When the instant construction equipment failed to pass a pre-examination of the construction substitute industry, the Defendant rejected the payment of rent to the Plaintiff even though May 15, 2015, which was the initial date of the rent, and on June 8, 2015, notified the Defendant on June 8, 2015, that on the ground that the Defendant’s refusal to pay rent would promote a lease agreement on the instant construction equipment to the other company.

C. On June 13, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a construction equipment lease agreement on the monthly rent of KRW 4.7 million (excluding value-added tax) and the instant construction equipment from June 13, 2015 to August 13, 2016 during the lease period, approximately 14 months from June 13, 2015 to August 2016, and the C Young field 2 period for the place of use, and the rent calculated from the date of passing the regular inspection by an official agency to the date of cancelling the site designation.

The fact that a regular inspection of the construction equipment of this case was completed on July 8, 2015 according to the construction equipment lease agreement entered into with the above sigae is not disputed by the defendant.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 9, and 13, and the purport of the whole pleadings.