1. The plaintiff (appointed party)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party).

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff and the designated parties (hereinafter “Plaintiff, etc.”) concluded a construction machinery lease agreement with the Defendant with respect to the construction of the E-high school teachers in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant construction work”). The Plaintiff, from October 26, 2012 to November 30, 2012, from December 26, 2012 to December 28, 2012, from December 26, 2012 to December 28, 2012, the appointed parties D leased the construction machinery (saf) to each Defendant from December 1, 2012 to December 29, 2012. Among the rent, the Plaintiff failed to receive KRW 1350,000,000 for the appointed parties and KRW 139,460 for the appointed parties and KRW 690,000 for the appointed parties, the Defendant is obligated to pay the above rent to the Plaintiff, etc.

B. The Defendant, as the head of the working group at the instant construction site, merely gave work instructions, etc., and did not enter into a construction machinery lease agreement as alleged by the Plaintiff, etc. with the Plaintiff, etc., and since F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) other than the Defendant leased construction machinery from the Plaintiff, etc., the Plaintiff’s request cannot be

2. The judgment of the plaintiff et al. seems consistent with the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff et al. concluded a construction machinery lease contract with the defendant and leased the construction machinery to the defendant is hard to believe that the statement of No. 9 is without merit. In full view of the statement of No. 4-1 through No. 6, No. 9 through No. 18, No. 1, No. 4, No. 1, No. 3, and No. 4, witness G, and testimony of the court of first instance, the defendant requested the plaintiff through J to lease the construction machinery to the plaintiff at the construction site of this case. In relation to the construction of this case, the standard contract for construction machinery lease was prepared by the date of use of each construction machinery as stated by the plaintiff, No. 28 through No. 31, Oct. 26, 2012; Nov. 1, 2012 through No. 7, Nov. 1, 14, 16 through 21, 2326 through 30.