A. The Defendant purchased ownership of the eight-story building located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E (hereinafter “instant building”) in the Seoul Central District Court C real estate compulsory auction case, and executed the delivery of real estate through G of the above court based on the above court F real estate delivery order.

B. At the time, the 1st floor H of the instant building was used as the place of coffee shop, and the 1st floor I No. 85.33 square meters of the 1st floor of the instant building was used as the place of business at the doorp shop, and the corporeal movables, such as stuffs, tables, and mixturess (hereinafter “the instant corporeal movables”) owned by J Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co., Ltd.”) were kept in each of the above places of business. However, as at the time of the execution of delivery of the instant building, the execution officer did not participate in the Nonparty Co., Ltd. at the time of delivery of the instant building, and the execution officer kept the instant corporeal movables owned by the Nonparty Co., Ltd., which were kept in custody in the instant building, to K participating in the execution procedure of delivery of the said real estate as the Defendant’s agent. The Defendant

C. On December 1, 2016, K on behalf of the Defendant entered into a cargo custody entrustment contract (hereinafter “instant custody contract”) with the Plaintiff, setting the period from December 1, 2016 to March 1, 2017 as KRW 1,00,000 for storage of the instant corporeal movables, and kept them in the storage warehouse operated by the Plaintiff. In the event that the maturity of storage is extended, the storage fees pursuant to the agreement were to be settled on a monthly basis (hereinafter “instant storage contract”). The Defendant paid KRW 3,00,000 for storage of three months pursuant to the instant storage contract, and entrusted the Plaintiff with the custody of the instant corporeal movables.

On the other hand, the non-party company filed a lawsuit against the defendant to request the delivery of corporeal movables of this case based on ownership, and the defendant did not pay KRW 23,01,200, which occurred when the non-party company run its business in the building of this case, on behalf of the defendant.