2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 65,120,319 won with 5% interest per annum from July 25, 2013 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the full payment date.

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

The court's reasoning on this part is as follows: (a) the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance read the "reliability of the insured under the contract of transport, good offices, and custody" as the "liability of the insured under the contract of transport, good offices, and custody"; and (b) the third part read the "tent" of the judgment of the court of first instance as the "contribute comprehensive logistics" (hereinafter "contribute comprehensive logistics"), and thus, it is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

A forwarding agent is liable for compensating the Plaintiff for damages due to the loss of, damage to, or delay in arrival of the goods unless he/she proves that he/she or his/her employees did not have neglected due care in connection with the receipt, delivery, storage, the selection of the carrier or other carriage of the goods (Article 115 of the Commercial Act). With respect to fire in the bonded warehouse of this case, the Plaintiff, as the forwarding agent, is liable for compensating the Plaintiff for damages due to the loss of, damage to, or delay in arrival of the goods (Article 115 of the Commercial Act). The Plaintiff is liable for compensating the Plaintiff for damages due to the loss of, damage to, or delay in arrival of, the goods caused by the fire in the bonded warehouse of this case, which was caused by the Plaintiff’s performance assistant or employee, or for failing to prove that there was no negligence as the forwarding agent in the course of selecting the goods as the warehouse. Accordingly, the Defendant, under the insurance contract of this case, is liable for compensating the Plaintiff for damages due to the loss of the goods of this case.

B. Determination as to the status of a person who works as an employee (employee, performance assistant)

1) First of all, even if the 00ma general logistics assists or acts as an agent for the plaintiff's employee, such person cannot be deemed as the employee of the forwarding agent if the forwarding agent independently performs his/her business activities without direct command and supervision (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da55052 delivered on March 10, 200). The whole purport of the pleadings in the statement Nos. 4, 5 and 6 of the evidence No. 4, in full view of the purport of the pleading, the 00ma general logistics is a warehouse business operator under Article 155 of the Commercial Act operating the warehouse business independently without the plaintiff's direction and supervision, and thus, the plaintiff's employee cannot be deemed as the plaintiff's employee.

2) Next, in this case where the plaintiff is the plaintiff's performance assistant, or the person who is engaged in the business of transporting goods by taking over the carriage of goods as the party to the contract of carriage of goods (Article 125 of the Commercial Act), the freight forwarder in his own name is divided (Article 114 of the Commercial Act), the carrier and the freight forwarder's liability for damages is divided (Articles 115 and 135 of the Commercial Act). Thus, in order to make the plaintiff as the plaintiff's performance assistant as the plaintiff's performance assistant, the 000 10 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 3 9 20 20 3 9 20 20 3 20 20 3 20 20 20 3 20 20 3 202 20 3 200 3 202 20 3 3 20 20 222

3) Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit, which is based on the premise that the plaintiff's employee is the plaintiff's employee or performance assistant.

C. Determination on negligence in the choice of warehouse business operators

In light of the following circumstances, Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5, 6 and Gap evidence Nos. 23 and 24 (including the paper numbers), which are acknowledged by comprehensively considering the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, the white-mate General Logistics is a person who operates the bonded warehouse of this case with the license of the head of Incheon customs office, and the scale of business and sales are 12 years, which is a 12-year comprehensive logistics business, and the fire caused in the bonded warehouse of this case is not a natural combustion due to the mistake in the electrical factors that can be seen as being caused by the negligence of the warehouse operator's negligence in the custody of the goods of this case, it is reasonable to view the white-ma General Logistics as a warehouse business operator suitable for the custody of the goods of this case. Accordingly, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, and the plaintiff's claim shall be revoked and dismissed.

Judges Lee Sung-gu (Presiding Judge)