1. Of the part regarding the principal lawsuit in the judgment of the court of first instance, 7,047.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person who engages in the wholesale business of agricultural products under the trade name “D” in Daejeon-gu Daejeon Metropolitan City C.

B. On June 22, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on the lease of the low temperature warehouse owned by the Defendant in Geumsan-gun (hereinafter “the low temperature warehouse in this case”) to KRW 600,000 monthly rent for seven months from around that time to January 2018. At that time, the Plaintiff stored 17,400 kilograms in the low temperature warehouse in this case (i.e., 870 x 20 km/ network, rating: peculiar).

C. On September 10, 2017, there was an accident of corruption on September 15, 2017 due to the fact that electric shock accidents occurred in the low temperature storage of this case due to the loss of air conditioners.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without a partial dispute, Gap 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 15 (including a provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), part of Gap 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the principal lawsuit

A. (negative) Whether the Plaintiff is liable for damages due to the breach of the duty to keep and manage a two-wave (negative) 1), the Plaintiff concluded a two-wave storage contract with the Defendant, not merely concluding a low temperature warehouse lease contract, and the Defendant frequently confirmed the condition of a cold storage in a low temperature warehouse and, by a special agreement, was responsible and managed to ensure that the Plaintiff does not have any defects until the Plaintiff took out the two-waves. Since the Defendant incurred losses in violation of the above agreement, the Defendant is liable for compensation corresponding to the market price of the two-waves. However, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant agreed to manage the two-waves stored in the low temperature warehouse of this case, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

The plaintiff's assertion in this part is not accepted.

B. Whether a warehouseman is liable for damages due to breach of duty in relation to the deposited goods (negative) 1 Plaintiff’s assertion is for the purpose of profit-making.