석재인도
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance other than the following 2.2. Thus, the court's explanation concerning this case is acceptable as it is by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. (2) The judgment on the merits of the instant stone is as seen earlier, and the Defendant is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for damages incurred due to tort on the ground that the Plaintiff did not arbitrarily dispose of the instant stone owned by the Plaintiff without undergoing legitimate legal procedures on the ground that the instant stone was not collected from the Plaintiff.
In this regard, the defendant asserts to the effect that "the plaintiff cannot continue to collect the stone of this case because it was impossible for the plaintiff to continuously bear storage fees, and thus, it is not illegal in the destruction of the stone of this case."
According to the purport of Gap evidence No. 9 submitted by the defendant in the trial room and the whole pleadings, the defendant may recognize the fact that the defendant stored the building stones of this case through E for at least one year, and disposed of them at the expense of KRW 5 million on May 13, 2017.
However, solely based on the foregoing circumstances, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the instant stone without specifically notifying the Plaintiff of the exact storage place and method of acquiring the instant stone, stating that “I will dispose of the instant stone without delivery until January 31, 2017, because it is in the custody of the instant stone in Gyeonggi-do,” and it is difficult to view the Plaintiff’s voluntary disposal of the instant stone as a justifiable act.
The Defendant discarded the instant stone that was imported by the Plaintiff in line with the standards for the instant construction works, and the instant contract was terminated due to the Plaintiff’s cause attributable to the Defendant.
It can be seen that the Plaintiff suffered any loss.