A. Around February 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a storage contract with the Defendant to pay the Defendant a storage fee of KRW 60,000 in the amount of KRW 60,00,00, on a low temperature storage warehouse of KRW 40 and KRW 35,00,00 on the ground of Jeonnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do. (56,250).

B. Accordingly, from February 10, 2014 to May 27, 2014, the Plaintiff stored 13,750 network (41,250 renunciation) in a low temperature storage warehouse of 40 square meters (40 square meters), and the remainder of 5,000 network (15,00 renunciation) in a 35 square low temperature storage warehouse, respectively.

C. On May 27, 2014, the Defendant: (a) 41,250 renunciations (13,750 Nets) stored in a low temperature storage warehouse of 40 square meters; (b) 2,700 of the 5,000 chains stored in a low temperature storage warehouse of 35 square meters sold 4.5 million won to the merchants located in Seoul; and (c) the remainder 2,300 chains were not shipped.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, testimony of witness D and purport of whole pleadings

2. Article 160 of the Commercial Act provides, “The warehouse business operator shall not be exempt from liability to compensate for any loss of or damage to the deposited goods unless he/she proves that he/she or his/her employees have not neglected to exercise due care in the custody of the leased goods.” The main text of Article 162(1) of the Commercial Act provides, “The warehouse business operator shall not demand payment of the storage charge, other expenses and substitute payment unless he/she ships the deposited goods out of the warehouse.”

In light of the above provisions, the distribution of this case, which was kept in the health belt and the low temperature storage warehouse of 40 square meters (13,750 nets) was discarded as seen earlier, and it is insufficient to recognize that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff or the witness E alone proves that the Plaintiff failed to exercise due care for the storage of the distribution of the deposited goods. Thus, the distribution of the deposited goods was not carried out in the low temperature storage warehouse of 40 square meters due to the reasons attributable to the Plaintiff.