beta
Text
1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a person who operates an electrical construction company with the trade name of “C” in Sincheon-dong, Siicheon-dong, and at the time of Siigu, the Plaintiff has stored various electrical construction-related materials, such as copper cables, lamps, etc., in accordance with the number indicated in the drawing(s) Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (hereinafter referred to as “instant warehouse”) according to the number indicated in the drawing(s).
B. On May 31, 201, the Plaintiff: (a) went to the instant warehouse on May 31, 201; and (b) discovered that electric construction-related materials, such as the copper Electric Cable, which had been kept in custody, were stolen (hereinafter “instant crime”).
C. Meanwhile, on the other hand, the Plaintiff leased No. 4 warehouse adjacent to the instant warehouse to E, who was in the custody of the F-owned machinery from February 2, 2010, and around March 2, 2011, F destroyed the locks installed at the entrance of the fourth warehouse and carried out the machines owned by the Plaintiff, which were kept therein, on the ground that it does not contact with E, and on April 5, 201, filled out a written confirmation (Evidence No. 2).
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1, 2, and 9, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. On June 1, 2011, the Plaintiff reported on June 1, 201 to 112 as soon as the police officers discovered the instant crime. On the day of reporting the instant crime, the police officers called to the scene of the instant crime and conducted on-site investigations, and distributed the said crime to H on June 3, 2011. H neglected the Plaintiff’s investigation by disregarding the Plaintiff’s demand regarding the investigation of the instant crime, such as visiting the scene for six months after reporting, securing CCTV recording data, and hearing the victim’s statement. On January 31, 2012, the Plaintiff did not notify the Plaintiff of the fact.