1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff: (a) deposited the Defendant with the amount of 18,349.29 tons of sand of this case.

B. The volume of the sand deposited in the instant case is 14,110.22 cubic meters if the volume of the sand was converted to that of the 29,500 cubic meters. At the time of the deposit, the market price of the sand in the instant case was 29,500 cubic meters per cubic meters. Thus, the market price of the sand in the instant case was 416,25

C. At the time of deposit, the Plaintiff was liable for the Defendant’s loan obligation of KRW 173,00,000, and KRW 51,080,446,00 for loading and unloading expenses. The amount of the instant sand converted into the amount of the instant sand based on the market price at the time of deposit is 7,595.94 cubic meters.

Therefore, the defendant is from 14,10.22 cubic meters of the sand of this case deposited with the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is obligated to pay 6,514.28 cubic meters calculated by deducting sand 7,595.94 cubic meters from 6,514.28 cubic meters. If payment of the said sand is impossible, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the amount calculated at the rate of 33,950 won per 33,95

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion on the board is premised on the fact that the instant sand was “afforested” to the Defendant.

The Defendant denies the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant sand was purchased from the Plaintiff, thereby denying the Plaintiff’s claim.

Therefore, the plaintiff must prove that the sand in this case was "affort" to the defendant.

In light of the following facts and circumstances, it is difficult to believe that part of the witness C’s testimony that seems consistent with the assertion of “a sacrificing,” and there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge “a sacrificing,” and there is no other evidence to acknowledge “a sacrificing,” only with the descriptions of evidence No. 1 and No. 2.

There is no deposit contract for the sand of this case.

However, the plaintiff and the defendant are only one time of sand loading and unloading work before, and there was no special relationship with them, and there was no circumstance that they will continue to maintain the relationship of friendship in the future.

Plaintiff

Even based on the assertion, the market price of the sand in this case was reasonable.

In this situation, the contract shall be entered into with the defendant who has no particular trust relationship.