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. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiffs are those running construction machinery rental business, etc., and the Defendant is a stock company that runs reinforced concrete construction business.

B. The Plaintiffs leased construction machinery, such as digging machines, at the waterworks construction site in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant construction site”), as indicated below, and performed the work of maintaining water supply authorized lines.

1. A dump truck 1,540,00 won each time from August 28, 2017 to September 5, 2017, total of KRW 2 C 9 times from October 23, 2017 to October 25, 2017, total of KRW 1,815,000 each time from October 23, 2017 to October 25, 2017.

C. The construction site of this case is the site where the Defendant performed the construction work under a contract with the main office of used water supply, and the Defendant’s representative did not go at all at the construction site of this case until the Plaintiffs completed the work.

After completion of work, the Plaintiffs were confirmed in the name of the Defendant in the construction machinery lease contract and work confirmation letter from the employees in charge of the instant construction site.

E. The Plaintiffs issued a tax invoice stating the Defendant’s business registration number, trade name, and place of business, and claimed the payment to the Defendant.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances can be acknowledged based on the above evidence in the determination of the cause of the claim: (i) the Plaintiffs appears to have become aware of the Defendant’s information stated in the above tax invoice at the time of request for the lease of the above construction machinery; and (ii) In particular, according to the above construction machinery lease contract and work confirmation, the construction site of this case appears to have been marked by the Defendant, not the FF corporation that the Defendant subcontracted the construction machinery at the construction site of this case, but the Defendant appears to have been aware of the fact that the subcontractor was the contractor

(3)