beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, KRW 10,674,612 against the Plaintiff and its related thereto, from March 31, 2016 to April 27, 2016.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. 1) On October 23, 2012, the Plaintiff, among the container warehouses located in Daegu-dong-gu D from C on October 23, 2012, he/she is deemed to be the electric sets kept in the container storage No. 17,26,32, 33, 52, and 57 (hereinafter “instant electric sets”).
(2) On November 1, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a storage contract with the Defendant to deposit goods by paying storage fees of KRW 150,000 per month for the storage of the said container at KRW 150,000 per unit (hereinafter “instant storage contract”).
3) Around 18:00 on November 5, 2012, around 18:00, C destroyed three consenting locks among the container stored with the instant electric sets, and stolen them with the door 600 copies of electric sets, and thereafter, C was sentenced to imprisonment for 10 months at the Daegu District Court (Seoul District Court 2013Hun-Ma899), and the said judgment became final and conclusive as they were as they were the withdrawal of appeal by C due to the criminal facts described in paragraph (3) of the same Article. (In the absence of dispute over the grounds for recognition, evidence No. 1, evidence No. 1, and evidence No. 1-23, and the purport of the entire pleadings.
B. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to safely keep the goods with the care of a good manager due to the depositee under a contract for value deposit. However, even then, the Defendant was found only after the commission of theft was completed, on the following grounds: (a) the person, other than the owner of the goods, did not fully discover the crime until the lock of the container warehouse was destroyed and the goods in the container were entirely removed.
In light of these circumstances of theft, it is reasonable to view that the defendant was unable to fulfill his/her duty of care as a bailee of stored cargo, and thus, the damage suffered by the plaintiff due to the above theft.