In around 2010, the Plaintiff and the Defendant kept the Plaintiff’s diggings into the Defendant’s freezing warehouse, and, if necessary, decided to deliver them to each other, and settled the charges for storage every month.

On September 2013, the Plaintiff discovered that the digging in custody in the Defendant's freezing warehouse was decomposed, and did not release the digging in custody in the freezing warehouse (hereinafter referred to as "the digging in this case").

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry Eul's evidence 9 (including additional number), Gap's video and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit

A. Article 160 of the Commercial Act provides that “No warehouse business operator shall be relieved of liability for damages from any loss of or damage to the deposited goods unless he/she proves that he/she or his/her employees have not neglected due care in the custody of the deposited goods.”

This is a provision that changes the burden of proof when taking the principle of fault liability for the warehouse operator's liability.

As seen earlier, the Defendant, who is a warehouse, shall prove and prove that the goods deposited, has fulfilled his duty of care as a good manager in the custody of freezing.

The defendant asserts to the effect that the automatic control device that can maintain temperature below 24 hours -18∑C is installed in the freezing warehouse, so that the automatic control device was installed in the freezing, so that no more than the temperature was operated or the operation was suspended, and the plaintiff's side transported the digging by using a vehicle that does not have freezing equipment, so that the digging was decomposed.

In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the images of heading 6 and 10 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence 4 and 5 (including each number), the Defendant’s freezing.