The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and the purport of the appeal are the judgment of the first instance.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 12, 2019, the Plaintiff entered into a contract to import seedlings 2,580 (C) from a seeds and seedlings dealer called Germany’s “C”. At that time, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to conduct quarantine and customs clearance as well as to transport the said seedlings.

B. The Defendant is a company engaged in quarantine and customs clearance agent business regarding agricultural and fishery products, livestock products, food products, plants, etc.

(c)

The above seedlings arrived at the Incheon Airport on May 16, 2019, and among them, 50gs of shot tree seedlings was detected as a result of quarantine and discarded on May 21, 2019 in accordance with the customs discarding order. The Defendant transported the remaining seedlings (hereinafter “instant seedlings”) that had undergone quarantine and customs clearance to the Plaintiff on May 22, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3 and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a specialized company for quarantine and customs clearance of plants, and is entrusted by the Plaintiff with quarantine and customs clearance for seedlings, and thus, there was a duty to keep and transport seedlings in a timely manner so as not to cause any damage, such as heat damage by properly examining the status of the seedlings until transferring the seedlings to the Plaintiff.

Nevertheless, in violation of the above duty, the Defendant kept the seedlings of this case in the sealed state for a long time, and transported them to the lag and killed all of them. As such, the Defendant is liable to compensate for the total amount of KRW 6,854,460 (the total amount of KRW 6,940,053 - the total amount of damages incurred by the Plaintiff (the total amount of seedlings - KRW 50 55,593).

B. The burden of proving the fact that no performance has been made in accordance with the content of the obligation in the claim for damages due to nonperformance of the obligation and the fact that the damage has occurred to the obligee (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Da49644, Feb. 11, 200; 200Da38718, Nov. 24, 2000; 200Da38718, 38725, etc.). The evidence No. 2, and No. 1 through No. 7 of the evidence No. 6-1 through No. 7 of the high-priced Party A. 7.