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 judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is the same as the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following “the part used by the court of second instance”. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of

2. On the third side of the judgment of the court of first instance, the "Witness H" of the first instance No. 11 shall be added to "H of the court of first instance".

The fourth through fifth of the first instance judgment shall be followed by the following:

“A. The Defendant’s claim for rent for the Plaintiff’s concrete pumps is a claim for the use of movable property. As such, the extinctive prescription period of one year is applied pursuant to Article 164 subparag. 2 of the Civil Act, and one year has elapsed since the Plaintiff prepared and delivered a statement of transaction to the Defendant. Even if that is not, the extinctive prescription period of three years is applied pursuant to Article 163 subparag. 3 of the Civil Act as it constitutes a claim for construction cost and thus, the extinctive prescription period of three years has expired pursuant to the provisional seizure against a claim. (b) As such, the extinctive prescription period of one year stipulated in Article 164 subparag. 2 of the Civil Act as one year prior to the interruption of the extinctive prescription on August 29, 2016 due to provisional seizure against a claim was complete. (i) As such, the “claim for rent for other movable property” refers to a claim for rent for lease for extremely short-term movables arising frequently from daily life, such as clothes, bedclothess, and equipment.

(See Supreme Court Decision 76Da1839 delivered on September 28, 1976). Therefore, the Plaintiff’s instant claim is a claim for rent for a concrete pumps, which is a equipment used during construction, and thus, the Plaintiff’s short-term extinctive prescription of one year is not applicable as it does not constitute a claim for rent for movable property under the said provision.

In addition, since the Plaintiff’s claim arising in return for lending concrete pumps to the Defendant cannot be seen as “a contract recipient under Article 163 subparag. 3 of the Civil Act, an article, or a claim for construction works of a person who is engaged in design or supervision of a construction work,” the three-year short-term extinctive prescription under the above provision.