beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 61,103,232 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 61% per annum from November 2, 2017 to February 19, 2019.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. Facts 1) The Plaintiff is a person who cultivates and sells scrap horses, and the Defendant is a person who operates warehouse business in the name of C. 2) around October 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a deposit agreement with the Defendant and the Plaintiff on a deposit agreement with the Defendant for six months at the Defendant’s low temperature warehouse and paid KRW 5 million,00,000,000 to the Defendant’s low temperature warehouse.
There is a dispute over the balance between the Plaintiff and the Defendant (the Plaintiff claims KRW 580,00, and the Defendant claims KRW 680,000) and the Defendant did not make a separate objection against set-off, the issue of this case is irrelevant to the issue of this case.
3) However, most of the Plaintiff’s meat stored in the Defendant’s low temperature warehouse were decomposed, thereby falling into the value of goods. 4) On March 13, 2017 and March 15, 2017, the Plaintiff shipped 5 tons truck 2, namely, 19,096km, among the meat meat stored in the Defendant’s low temperature warehouse. In this case, the Plaintiff sold only 12,970km.
5) Meanwhile, between April 12, 2017 and April 26, 2017, the Defendant: (a) shipped the eaves of 5 tons truck remaining in the Defendant’s low temperature warehouse, namely, 6,836km of 7 tons; and (b) at this time only 16,970 kilograms sold only 16,970 kilograms. [In the absence of dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap’s statements or images, evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5, 6, and evidence No. 6-1 through No. 6-7, and the purport of the entire pleadings.
B. Determination 1) A warehouseman cannot be exempt from liability for damages arising from the loss of or damage to the goods bailed unless he/she proves that neither he/she nor his/her employees have neglected to exercise due care in the custody of the goods bailed (Article 160 of the Commercial Act, and the Defendant, a warehouse business operator, did not prove that he/she or his/her employees have neglected to exercise due care in the custody of the goods bailed by the Plaintiff.