손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The fact that the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to use 33 square meters of air conditioners (hereinafter “instant warehouse”) located in Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-si, the Defendant owned (hereinafter “instant contract”), and paid 2,000,000 won in return for the payment on November 10, 2016; and the fact that the Plaintiff used the instant warehouse from around that time does not conflict between the parties.
2. The parties' assertion
A. The plaintiff's contract of this case is a deposit contract under the Commercial Act, and the defendant cannot be exempted from liability for damages arising from the loss of or damage to the deposited goods unless he proves that he has not neglected due care in the custody of the deposited goods as a warehouse business operator.
The Defendant neglected to exercise due care in good managers caused the breakdowns in the control tower panel of the warehouse of this case, and thereby, the Defendant lost the function of the warehouse of this case, thereby iceing both of the bailors.
On the other hand, even if the instant contract is a lease agreement, the lessor has the duty to maintain the object necessary for the use and profit-making during the existence of the contract, and the Defendant violated the said duty.
Therefore, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages of KRW 57,072,100 (cost of purchase and purchase KRW 47,00,000, cost of death and harvest labor cost of KRW 6,110,000, cost of transport and transport, KRW 962,100, cost of new guidance maintenance, KRW 1,000, cost of new guidance maintenance, KRW 2,000,000, and cost of use of warehouse of this case, KRW 2,00,000, out of the profit of KRW 82,64,760, which would have been able to incur if all of the above departments were sold.
B. The Defendant’s instant contract is not a deposit contract, but a lease contract that simply leases the instant warehouse to the Plaintiff.
After entering into the contract of this case, the Defendant informed the Plaintiff of the method of using the warehouse of this case, and provided the key to the warehouse of this case at the Plaintiff’s request, and the Plaintiff used this to keep the company in the warehouse of this case. Therefore, the Defendant was the Defendant.