1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company running the construction machinery leasing business, etc., and the Defendants are co-owners of Y in Y that took effect from April 2017 from the Development Corporation (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. From April 30, 2017 to August 31, 2017, the Plaintiff leased construction equipment necessary for performing civil engineering works on the instant land.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The key issue of the instant case is that the contracting party who leased the construction equipment necessary for the development of the instant land from the Plaintiff is the Defendants who owned the instant land, and seek reimbursement of the equipment rent of KRW 58,59,750 and its delay damages against the Defendants.

As to this, the Defendants asserted that the parties who entered into a construction equipment rental contract with the Plaintiff are not the Defendants, but the E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”), which performed the instant land development project, the Defendants did not have the obligation to pay the equipment rent to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the issue of this case is whether the Defendants leased the construction equipment from the Plaintiff.

3. The identity of the party to the determination is a matter of interpretation of the intent of the party involved in the contract.

In a case where there is a difference between the parties regarding the interpretation of a juristic act, which becomes a problem in the interpretation of the intention of the parties, the contents of the juristic act, motive and background of such juristic act, the purpose to be achieved by the juristic act, the genuine intention of the parties, etc. shall be comprehensively

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Da256999, Jan. 17, 2019). According to the following circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that a party who entered into a construction equipment lease agreement with the Plaintiff is E, taking into account the aforementioned evidence and the overall purport of the arguments:

Therefore, the defendant, not E, is not E.