1. The Defendant paid KRW 94,206,192 to the Plaintiff and KRW 6% per annum from February 23, 2017 to June 19, 2018.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who engages in construction machinery leasing business, etc. under the trade name of “B,” and the Defendant Company is a corporation that engages in construction business, etc. as a target

B. Around March 2016, the Defendant Company entered into a construction subcontract agreement (hereinafter “instant subcontract agreement”) with respect to the construction period from March 9, 2016 to July 14, 2017, with respect to water supply and incidental soil works (hereinafter “instant construction”) among the construction works, with the name of “D,” which is a “D” and engaged in construction business, etc., on March 3, 2016.

C. From April 2016 to January 11, 2017, the Plaintiff invested the construction machinery at the instant construction site to perform the work of organizing soil and sand, transporting and organizing aggregate, and destroying the foundation of boundary stone.

From June 14, 2016 to November 10, 2016, the Defendant Company paid the Plaintiff a total of KRW 46,669,283 of the rent for construction machinery on eight occasions. The Plaintiff, who was supplied with the Defendant Company, issued a tax invoice of KRW 56,526,195 in total on three occasions on October 31, 2016; and on November 25, 2016, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice of KRW 56,526,195 in total on three occasions on November 30, 2016.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 23, evidence 33, Eul evidence 1, evidence 2, purport of whole pleadings]

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s cause of action concluded a construction machinery lease agreement with the Defendant Company with the introduction of E, and performed work by inserting construction machinery at the construction site of this case.

Therefore, the Defendant Company is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the total sum of the rent for construction machinery from August 29, 2016 to January 11, 2017, KRW 95,957,345, and delay damages.

B. The Defendant Company did not directly conclude a construction machinery lease agreement with the Plaintiff, which is the gist of the Defendant Company’s assertion.

However, the subcontract amount of this case shall be limited to the part confirmed to have been completed by E.