1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff asserts that, as the Defendant lost a product in breach of the fiduciary duty while keeping the Plaintiff’s product in custody, the Plaintiff is liable to compensate for damages incurred therefrom (341,827,019 won).

The Plaintiff and the Defendant, around July 2017, concluded a contract with the Plaintiff to keep the Plaintiff’s products in the Defendant’s warehouse and to perform all duties, such as the storage, shipment, and packing of the products at the Plaintiff’s request (hereinafter “instant contract”). The fact that the Defendant had been in charge of the storage, shipment, and storage of the Plaintiff’s products on the basis of the said contract is no dispute between the parties.

Meanwhile, according to each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 4 through 20, and 23, a dispute has occurred between the plaintiff and the defendant from June 2018 to his/her opinion on the settlement of storage fees and the inventory of the defendant. Ultimately, the parties agree to terminate the contract of this case as of July 18, 2018, and recognize the fact that the joint inventory investigation was conducted on July 20, 2018.

However, among the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff as evidence on the total quantity and quantity of the stored goods, Gap evidence Nos. 10 through 25 (including the number of pages; hereinafter the same shall apply) submitted by the Plaintiff as evidence on the whole quantity of the stored goods and the quantity of the stored goods, the defendant argued that the authenticity of each of the above evidence is "site" as to the establishment of the documents of the stored quantity and the quantity of the stored goods. However, each of the above evidence is evidence about the fact that the plaintiff delivered the stored goods in the warehouse of the corporation, which kept the existing goods in July 2017 to August 2017, and each of the stored quantity data is insufficient to recognize that "the total quantity of the plaintiff's goods actually stored in the warehouse of the defendant" was proved only because the plaintiff's delivery of the corresponding quantity of the goods to the plaintiff.