1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant ordering payment in excess of the amount ordered below.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 10, 2018, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the storage of goods (hereinafter “instant storage contract”) with the Defendant and the Defendant’s 24 ambling room and outside storage room containing the Plaintiff’s clothes, books, air conditioners, and settling presses (hereinafter “instant storage contract”). On the same day, the Plaintiff kept his/her goods at the place designated by the Defendant and paid 230,000 won of storage fees to the Defendant.

B. Around August 29, 2018, while the Defendant kept the Plaintiff’s goods, rainwater entered the Defendant’s storage room, and water was stored on the 24th floor where the Plaintiff’s goods were stored.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

On August 30, 2018, the defendant confirmed that the plaintiff's goods were flooded, and stored them again in a re-packaged of the flooded stuff.

On September 9, 2018, the plaintiff received the return of the goods kept by the defendant and confirmed the inundation of certain goods.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 4, 7, 8 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff’s goods were damaged due to the instant accident even though the Plaintiff’s goods were stored in accordance with the storage contract of this case, and the Plaintiff did not notify the Plaintiff of the accident, and some goods were lost during the process.

Furthermore, the co-defendant C, who is the defendant's director, committed an illegal act that orders the re-exploit only through employees, without taking any measure even after receiving a report on the instant accident, and the relevant employees damaged or lost the goods in breach of their duty of care. The defendant is liable to compensate for damages caused by the illegal act committed by C pursuant to Article 35 of the Civil Act.

Therefore, the defendant did not perform his obligation and tort against the plaintiff.