1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 11,222,00 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its payment from February 4, 2015 to November 26, 2015.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. A. Around June 2014, the Defendant entered into a storage contract with the Plaintiff, a warehouse business entity, to store 5,611 net 11,22,00 won (2,00 won per network) at the Plaintiff’s low temperature warehouse. Around that time, the Defendant entered the same spath in the Plaintiff warehouse.

B. From January 28, 2015, the Defendant

2.3. By the date of release, the 2,575 net was decomposed and was not sold normally.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 5 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of the principal claim

A. According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 11,22,00 won for remuneration under the above contract and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum under the Commercial Act from February 4, 2015 to November 26, 2015, which is the date of delivery of a copy of the complaint in this case, and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment.

B. The Plaintiff filed a claim for the payment of damages for delay from February 3, 2015, but the payment of the fees under the deposit contract is deemed to have been performed without agreement between the parties (Articles 701 and 686(2) of the Civil Act). In this case where there is no assertion or proof that there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the payment date of the fees, as seen earlier, the Defendant’s chip was kept in the above warehouse, and the Defendant’s claim for damages for delay on the date of the final shipment is rejected.

3. As to the defendant's counterclaim and counterclaim claim, the defendant did not perform his/her duty of care in the custody of the warehouse business operator, and the 25,642,00 won [the 20,60,000 won [the 20,600 won work per network (the 8,000 won work costs per network)] as compensation for damages against the plaintiff as a result of the defendant's failure to perform his/her duty of care in the custody of the warehouse business operator.