1.The judgment of the first instance, including any claims added by this Court, shall be modified as follows:

The plaintiff's primary part is the plaintiff.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part is as follows: “The goods of this case thereafter have been stored in the E-factory warehouse located in Hacheon-gu, Y on May 25, 2013 (hereinafter “the warehouse of this case”)” in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since it is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance, in addition to deletion of “A evidence 6” from the column for recognition of the fourth page, the goods of this case have been stored in the E-factory warehouse located in Hacheon-gu, Hacheon-gu.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Defendant, the primary cause of the claim, kept the instant goods in the warehouse to secure the claim for the return of the instant investment amount. Although the Plaintiff returned all the instant investment amount to the Defendant, the Defendant disposed of the instant goods through D without returning them to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages equivalent to the market price of the instant goods, which are losses incurred by the Plaintiff due to the nonperformance or embezzlement as above.

(B) Article 202 of the Civil Code provides the basis for damages.

Since the Defendant, upon the Plaintiff’s request or on consignment, had the instant goods stored in the warehouse of this case, it was impossible to return the instant goods by disposing of them through D even though the Defendant had a duty of due care as a good manager.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for the considerable amount of the market price of the instant goods, which is the damage incurred by the Plaintiff due to the nonperformance or embezzlement as above.

3. All the plaintiff's primary and conjunctive arguments are premised on the defendant's duty to manage the goods of this case without the plaintiff's consent so that the goods of this case can not be disposed of. Thus, the plaintiff's primary and conjunctive arguments are examined first.

In full view of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff.