1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the amount ordered to be paid below is revoked.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as it is by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the above fact of recognition as to the unpaid rent, the lease period for the offset stone shall be calculated from July 21, 2015, which became first due on the date following the date of the trial operation or the date following the expiration of the installation period pursuant to the proviso to Article 3(1) of the above lease contract. Thus, the Defendants jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for payment of rent 203,50,000 won (=15,500,000 won x 1.1 x 1.1 x (29/31 per month) including value-added tax) for the period from July 21, 2015 to July 18, 2016 that the Plaintiff seeks from July 29, 2016 to July 29, 200 won (=203,500,5000 won - KRW 500,500,0000,000) that the Plaintiff was paid as the rent.

As to this, the Defendants asserted that the Defendants agreed to receive the crushed stone after the drilling, and that the previous rent was exempted and the rent was paid from the trial date.

In full view of the facts of the above recognition and the evidence mentioned above and Eul evidence No. 10, the defendant company requested that the plaintiff's employee E pay late the time when he/she will take over the Offset period due to the circumstances in other construction sites ( September 27, 2015). The defendant company issued a tax invoice on rent for June 19, 2015 and did not issue a tax invoice on the Offset period by February 2016. According to Article 4 of the above lease agreement, if the rental period is ten months or longer, the defendant company paid the plaintiff for transportation expenses incurred in dismantling the Offset period on September 8, 2016, but it is recognized that the defendant company paid KRW 9,200,500 to G on September 8, 2016, but the delivery was delayed due to the circumstances of the defendant company, and even if the period was postponed, the period was already scheduled to be extended on February 27, 2015.