1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 23, 2011, the Defendant entered into a subcontract for construction works with the Hanyang Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Songyang Construction Co., Ltd.”) with the Defendant, constituting a joint contractor with the South Mine Construction Co., Ltd., and concluded a contract with the Korea Rail Network Authority (hereinafter “instant construction works”), with regard to the construction works of soil and structures (including value-added tax) among the construction works of the Seoul High-Speed 9 Section which entered into a contract with the Korea Rail Network Authority (hereinafter “instant construction works”). As a joint contractor, the Defendant entered into a contract for construction works with the Defendant as a joint contractor.

B. On August 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a construction machinery rental agreement with the non-party company and lent concrete pumps (A) to the non-party company for use in the instant construction work. The non-party company applied for commencement of corporate rehabilitation procedures to the Seoul Central Court on April 25, 2014, and the non-party company did not pay KRW 95,590,000 to the Plaintiff for construction machinery equipment until April 24, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 2 evidence, Eul 3 and 11 each entry

2. The parties' assertion

A. (1) Upon the suspension of the payment of construction machinery by the non-party company, the Plaintiff discontinued the construction machinery rental, and as a result, the construction work in this case was discontinued, the Plaintiff proposed that the Defendant would pay 40% of the unpaid equipment cost in preference to the Plaintiff on June 2014. Accordingly, the Plaintiff transferred the claim amounting to 40% of the equipment cost claim against the non-party company to the joint supply and demand company with the Defendant, and received 38,372,400 won from the Defendant. (2) After which the Plaintiff transferred the claim amounting to 40% of the equipment cost claim against the non-party company, and received 38,372,400 won from the Defendant.

3. On the other hand, the defendant constitutes a client or contractor under Article 35 (2) of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, and the plaintiff constitutes a construction machinery rental business operator, and the non-party company