1. Revocation of the judgment of the first instance, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Of the total costs of litigation, the Plaintiff and the Defendant accrue.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person who is engaged in construction machinery contracting, leasing business, etc. under the trade name of “D”, and the Defendant is a corporation established for the purpose of reinforced concrete construction business.

B. The Plaintiff was engaged in the Plaintiff’s work using equipment, such as scrails, owned by the Plaintiff from April 2016 to August 2016 at the site of the sewerage construction works located E (hereinafter “instant construction works”) in order for the Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) to be awarded a contract from the regular Eup Si around 2015, but was not paid KRW 7.6 million out of the cost of using the equipment on August 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul evidence No. 4-1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff entered into an agreement on the use of equipment with the Defendant, who is the subcontractor of the instant construction project via F, who is the Defendant’s employee, and was engaged in the work using the Plaintiff’s equipment at the instant construction site pursuant to the aforementioned agreement on the use of equipment. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 7.6 million for unpaid equipment and damages for delay on August 2016. Therefore, the Defendant’s summary of the Defendant’s assertion did not have entered into a contract on the use of equipment with the Plaintiff.

B. Determination 1) First of all, comprehensively taking into account the following facts: (a) whether the Defendant was a party to the instant contract for the use of equipment between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff; (b) whether there was no dispute; (c) evidence Nos. 4 and 5; and (d) evidence Nos. 3, the F, who managed the said site, was an employee of the Defendant from November 1, 2015 to November 8, 2016 during the instant construction period; and (d) on October 11, 2016, 50,000 (including value-added tax, and G was paid in the name of this G; and (e) H, the Defendant’s representative director.