1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Plaintiff regarding the amount of payment ordered below.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is a trade name D, the defendant completed each business registration as E, and is engaged in the construction machinery rental business, and C is a corporation established for the sloping cement manufacturing business.

B. On September 12, 2017, the Plaintiff concluded a sand transport contract with C using his dump truck with the Defendant’s main line. From September 12, 2017 to November 1, 2017, the Plaintiff transported sand to leumcon company in the Gyeong-gun and Gyeongnam-gun sand gathering area operated by C using his dump truck from September 12, 2017 to November 1, 2017.

【Ground for recognition】 The whole purport of each entry and pleading of Gap's 1, 2, and 3 (in the case of evidence with a provisional number, including a branch number; hereinafter the same shall apply)

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant, the primary cause of the claim, is the partner of the Codefendant C Co., Ltd. of the first instance trial or the subcontractor, even if not the partner, is the party who entered into a sand transport contract with the Plaintiff, and thus, is jointly and severally liable with C to pay the Plaintiff fees for the use of equipment. 2) Even if the primary cause of the claim is not in a partnership or subcontract relationship, the Defendant is jointly and severally liable with Co.,Defendant C Co., Ltd. of the first instance trial, which is jointly and severally liable

(A) Since the Defendant did not properly pay part of the usage fees to be paid to the Plaintiff after being delegated with the duties of paying usage fees by C, it should be deemed that the said money was embezzled, and thus, it should be refunded to the Plaintiff in unjust enrichment. (B) The Defendant was delegated with the duties of receiving and distributing dump truck usage fees paid by C from the Plaintiff.