The plaintiff's appeal and the plaintiff's additional claim are all dismissed.

after the filing of an appeal.

1. The Defendant alleged that the Plaintiff is liable to the Plaintiff for the loss of the goods entrusted by the Plaintiff, etc. If the problem arises, and the Plaintiff entrusted the Defendant with the custody and delivery of Macp Factor 923 in China from October 21, 2017 to November 2, 2017.

The defendant delivered the remainder of the above 923 excluding 374 stuffs to the company designated by the plaintiff, and lost 374 stuffs.

Then, the Defendant approved the Plaintiff’s debt to the effect that the Defendant would be liable for damages caused by the loss.

Therefore, the Defendant is liable for compensating the Plaintiff for damages of KRW 257,122,080 equivalent to the above 374 Park In accordance with the promise or the approval of the obligation as above, or is liable for compensating for damages of KRW 257,122,080 pursuant to Articles 135 and 160 of the Commercial Act as a carrier or warehouse business operator, or for compensating for damages of KRW 257,122,080 due to the Defendant’s tort liability or the Defendant’s tort committed by J (or I; hereinafter “J”)’s Chinese employee J (or J”)’s tort liability.

2. Determination

A. First of all, in light of the contents of evidence Nos. 9 and 14 as to whether the Plaintiff entrusted 923 Mac Factors to the Defendant, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff was not the Plaintiff but the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s representative director, and the testimony of witness H of the first instance court is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff directly entrusted Mac Factors to the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

In addition, even if the defendant is the party to whom Mak fact 923 gambling was entrusted, it is alleged that the defendant operates a corporation (J) and no contract is prepared regarding storage and delivery between the plaintiff and the defendant.