1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

1. Basic facts

A. On July 21, 2018, the Plaintiff, via C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) engaging in cargo brokerage business, requested the Defendant, who is a cargo carrier, to transport the front wheelchairs, purchased from the broker of Ulsansan, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a contract with the Defendant, on the same day, to transport the electric wheelchairs from Ulsan to Sgsan for KRW 1.20,00 (hereinafter “instant transport contract”).

B. The Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to submit additional cargo from the Plaintiff, who was on board the Defendant’s cargo vehicle in the vicinity of the destination of the carriage. The Plaintiff, who did not pay the additional cargo charge, kept the front wheelchairs in the C’s office without paying any transportation charge and without receiving any contact.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, 5 evidence, Eul evidence 1 to 10, witness D, and E's testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant brought a theft of the electric wheelchairs with the intention of unlawful acquisition or did not perform his/her obligation under the transport contract, and that the plaintiff suffered a loss equivalent to the market price of the electric wheelchairs, a loss caused by the failure to perform his/her duty under the transport contract, or mental loss caused by the injury caused by the forced landing during the transport.

In light of the fact that the Defendant was not paid the fare according to the transport contract of this case by the Plaintiff, the carrier is not sufficient to recognize that the Defendant brought the electric wheelchairs to the intention of unlawful acquisition, and there is no other evidence to recognize it.

In addition, as seen below, it is difficult to view that the Defendant did not perform its obligation under the instant contract of carriage, as seen in the “judgment on counterclaim”.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

(b).