A. The Plaintiff is a company that runs wholesale and retail business, such as amnestys and paintings, and the Defendant is a person who runs warehouse business and trade business in the trade name of “B.”

B. Around March 2014, the Defendant deposited the Plaintiff’s original store (hereinafter “instant deposited goods”) in Ddong, among warehouse buildings located in C (hereinafter “instant warehouse building”) located in Namyang-si, Namyang-si, Inc. (hereinafter “instant warehouse building”).

C. On the other hand, the Defendant leased the instant warehouse building to E and F, which is operated and Nadong, and the instant warehouse building was destroyed by fire (hereinafter “instant fire”) due to G and H’s negligence, which is a D’s employee, and all of the instant warehouse buildings were destroyed. The instant deposited goods 11,385.36km, which were stored in the instant warehouse, were destroyed by the instant fire.

At around 08:40 on December 24, 2015, the above G and H were indicted for committing an offense that "at around 09:00, the Defendant: (a) at the factory adjacent to the building used as the above D warehouse; (b) Defendant G left the drum and left the drum at around 09:00 without completely extinguishing the fire; and (c) Defendant H, at around 09:10, went into the warehouse with the remaining charcoal on the asphalt floor and entered the warehouse as it is; (d) by the negligence, at around 09:10, the fire remaining in the drums were moved to the D inventory outer wall; and (e) the fire remaining in the drums was moved to the adjacent Defendant B’s warehouse; and (e) the fire was destroyed by three operation of the warehouse of this case by making it turned to the D warehouse."

(The grounds for recognition) The facts of absence of dispute, Gap's entries or videos (including serial numbers) with the evidence Nos. 1 to 4, 6 through 10, 12, 13, and the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendant, a warehouse business operator, who has kept the deposited goods in the warehouse building of this case under a deposit contract with the plaintiff, has no special circumstances.