1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. As to the case of application for the suspension of compulsory execution by this Court 2016 Chicago3, September 30, 2016

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff was awarded a contract for the 1,308,175,000 won for the instant construction work from Jindo-gun around 2015 (hereinafter “instant construction”).

B. The Defendant asserted that he leased construction equipment at the instant construction site, and filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the rent for construction equipment at the instant construction site. On February 19, 2016, the said court rendered a decision on performance recommendation (hereinafter “instant decision”) to the effect that “the Plaintiff would pay KRW 17,395,160 to the Defendant and delay damages therefrom,” and the instant decision became final and conclusive around that time.

[Reasons for Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence No. 1, the fact-finding results of the court's fact-finding on Jindo-gun, the whole purport of the pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion and the party who leased the construction equipment for the instant construction work are not the defendant but the non-party C who subcontracted the instant construction work from the plaintiff, and the plaintiff is not liable to pay the equipment rent to the defendant.

Compulsory execution based on the instant decision shall not be permitted.

B. (1) Determination 1) Evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) as to who the party leased the equipment with respect to the instant construction project from the Defendant.

The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the statement of each court and the fact-finding results to Jindo-gun.

① The Plaintiff asserted that the instant construction was sub-subcontracted to C, but the Jindo-gun, the ordering owner, was notified that the reinforced concrete construction was subcontracted to a multi-party building among the instant construction works, and was not notified of C’s sub-subcontract.

② A written confirmation of the instant construction work was issued in the name of the Plaintiff, and the Defendant issued a tax invoice on equipment rent in the name of the Plaintiff, and received rent from the Plaintiff.

(3)