1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 15, 2013, the Plaintiff, a goods custodian, entered into a goods storage contract with the Defendant on which the amount of storage fees for the Defendant and the storage fees for each container is KRW 150,000 per month (excluding value-added tax), the last day of the following month, and the period from March 15 to August 31, 2013, respectively, and the contract is automatically extended every one month under the same conditions (hereinafter “instant contract”).

B. The Defendant first used two containers and gradually increased the number of containers used, and the number of containers used was nine around October 2013.

The plaintiff and the defendant decided to reduce the amount of KRW 200,00 from the monthly storage fees from October 2013 to the increase in the number of used goods until the time. The defendant began to use the container of this case (number of 10) from January 2014.

C. As the Defendant began to pay storage fees more late than the due date from the storage fees in October 2013, and failed to meet the due date, the Plaintiff paid KRW 7,388,000 for unpaid storage fees until June 12, 2014, and then sent a written notification that “the container of this case is changed by the due date” until June 19, 2014, and the said written notification reached the Defendant around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 and 2 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant did not pay KRW 4,290,000 for storage fees for March through May, 2014, and KRW 823,00 for storage fees between June 1, 2014 and June 19, 2014.

The plaintiff reduced the storage fees of KRW 200,00 per month on condition that the defendant pays the storage fees at the due date, and did not claim to the defendant for KRW 300,000 working expenses of September 23, 2013 and KRW 175,000 for five-day storage fees of containers during September 2013. The agreement on reduction is effective because the defendant did not comply with the due date.