2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff entered into a security service agreement on September 15, 2005 between the Defendant and the Defendant for the purpose of the security of the above ground agricultural product storage B (hereinafter “instant warehouse”) at the time of rice production, in which the amount of 50 tons of rice in the Plaintiff’s check was kept. On November 27, 2010, the Plaintiff added a special term that the Plaintiff would not support the key other than the Plaintiff.

However, without the consent of the plaintiff, the defendant's employee transferred the keys to the warehouse of this case to C without permission, and the key to C, which was stored in the warehouse of this case, cut down rice.

Therefore, since the Defendant violated the security service contract with the Plaintiff, it is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages equivalent to KRW 87,00,000, which is the value of 50 tons of rice in bidding.

B. Since the party to whom the Defendant entered into a security service contract regarding the instant warehouse was a limited partnership company that is not the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant company”), the Plaintiff cannot file a claim for damages on the ground of nonperformance of contractual obligations.

2. Facts of recognition;

A. The instant company was established on April 8, 1995, and the Plaintiff has been working as a representative member since its incorporation.

And C in both the plaintiff and the married couple are limited partners of the company of this case.

B. The warehouse of this case was owned by the company of this case, and was sold by auction on March 26, 2014 to others.

C. On September 9, 2005, the Plaintiff drafted a system security service contract regarding the instant warehouse between the Defendant and the Defendant, and entered his name in the name of the customer in the contract, entered the instant company in the name of the guard, and entered his name in the lower part of the contract in the customer column.

On November 30, 2009, the Plaintiff drafted a system security application for the instant warehouse between the Defendant and the Defendant. On November 30, 2009, the Plaintiff’s name was the instant company and the business registration number (resident number) of the instant company.