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. Basic facts

A. On February 10, 2012, the Navy awarded a contract for the fourth construction work among B sewage culvert rearrangement works to the Defendant, with the period from February 16, 2012 to December 30, 2012, with the construction cost of KRW 2,451,90,80, and the period from February 16, 2012 to December 30, 2012. The construction cost of KRW 2,080,086,000, and the construction period of KRW 2,080 was changed to February 26, 2013.

B. On March 20, 2012, the Defendant awarded a subcontract for the instant construction work with the construction cost of KRW 1,429,050,000, and the construction period of KRW 1,429,000 from March 20, 2012 to December 20, 2012, with the construction cost of KRW 1,369,513,00, and the construction period of KRW 1,369,513,00, respectively.

C. For the 13th day of February 2013, the Plaintiff injected the cump and dump truck at the instant construction site during the 27th day of March 2013.

On March 13, 2013, the Plaintiff was paid KRW 6,919,00 in total (= KRW 330,719,000 per day unit price per digging machine x 13 days x 13 days x 1.1 value added tax x 2,200,00) from the Defendant on February 13, 2013. However, on March 13, 2013, the Plaintiff did not receive KRW 12,801,00 in total (= KRW 330,000 per day unit price per digging machine x 27 days x 1.2,200,00 in total).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's 2 through 4, 10 evidence, Eul's 1 to 3, 9 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff, at the request of the Plaintiff’s executives and employees, puts a dump truck and a dump truck at the construction site of this case, and the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the total amount of KRW 12,001,00,000 for the equipment cost for March 2013, and delay damages therefor.

B. The Plaintiff inputs a digging machine, etc. according to an agreement with the Defendant, and on February 2, 2013, the cost of the equipment was paid by the Defendant through the towing Construction with the consent of the towing Construction, and the cost of the equipment was paid directly by the Defendant through the towing Construction. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s request can be complied with.