1. The Defendant’s KRW 5,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from August 15, 2010 to January 28, 2016, and the following.

Facts of recognition

On July 2007, the Plaintiff leased a vinyl and container owned by the Defendant from the Defendant to KRW 2 million on a yearly basis. From the expiration of the contract, the Plaintiff used the vinyl and container without compensation from July 2009 to July 2009.

On March 18, 2009, the Defendant sold C’s land to another person at the time when a vinyl house or a container was located, and for this reason, requested the Plaintiff to remove the goods inside the vinyl house and the container and deliver them to the Defendant.

On July 30, 2009, the Defendant, who did not deliver a vinyl and container, was unable to remove the vinyl without the Plaintiff’s consent and take the Plaintiff’s goods inside the container. Accordingly, the Defendant was acquitted on September 10, 201 on the grounds that “In order to remove the container locked without the Plaintiff’s consent, the Defendant: (a) removed the container locked; (b) removed the container locked; and (c) removed the said vinyl and container at the same time at the same place; and (d) removed the said vinyl and container at the same time, the Defendant was indicted on the charge that “the Defendant damaged the Plaintiff’s goods worth KRW 193 million owned by the Plaintiff, such as the list of the damaged goods stored therein, and damaged the goods worth KRW 199,30,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000).”

However, the appellate court's District Court did not know the objective market price of the details of the damage in the attached Form (hereinafter "the damage in this case"), but judged that the damage in this case claimed by the plaintiff was stored in the lower court or in the container at the time, and it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff allowed the defendant to dispose of the goods in accordance with the defendant's mind beyond the meaning that the goods in this case would be damaged to a certain extent.