1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for the case where the Defendants make an additional determination as to the allegations in the appellate court under paragraph (2), and therefore, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.

The main point is that the Defendants are obliged to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid service costs stated in the claims according to the consignment goods storage and logistics agency contract with the Plaintiff.

2. Additional determination as to the Defendants’ assertion in the appellate trial

A. The Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff agreed to exempt the Defendants from the Defendants’ remaining service charges in order to compensate for damages caused by fire (hereinafter “instant fire”) in the Plaintiff’s logistics warehouse located at the time of strike on December 17, 2015.

However, it is not sufficient to recognize the above contract facts only with the statement of No. 10 and the testimony of E by the witness E, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The above assertion by the Defendants is rejected.

B. The Defendants asserted that the amount of the service charges against the Plaintiff cannot extend to the claim amount.

However, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the evidence Nos. 4, 5, and 6-1 to 4, it can be acknowledged that the amount of the service costs owed by the Defendants against the Plaintiff reaches the claim amount.

The defendants' assertion against this is rejected.

C. The Defendants asserted that the amount equivalent to the Plaintiff’s claim should be deducted from the Plaintiff’s claim amount, in a lawsuit filed against the Plaintiff against the Plaintiff, the lessor of the logistics warehouse, Inc., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”).

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the above argument.

Rather, according to the evidence No. 11, it is recognized that the scope of damages claimed by the Plaintiff against F was not included in the scope of damages caused by the Defendants’ non-payment of service costs.