1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B Co., Ltd. shall be KRW 15,882,570 and shall be annually from March 1, 2016 to October 26, 2018.

The judgment on the cause of the claim is based on the following: (a) the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendants for storage and distribution agency with the content that the Defendants entrusted the storage of the goods at the request of the Defendants; (b) the Plaintiff’s performance of duties pursuant to each of the above contracts; (c) the Plaintiff’s performance of duties pursuant to the service charges of the Defendant Company B from November 2015 to February 2016; (d) the service charges of the Defendant Company C from December 2015 to March 2016 to March 2016; and (e) the service charges of KRW 22,856,680 from December 2015 to March 2016 to March 2016 to Defendant D, there is no dispute between the parties.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendants are obliged to pay the above service costs and damages for delay to the Plaintiff.

On December 17, 2015, the defendants' assertion on the defendants' assertion occurred in the logistics warehouse where the plaintiff stored the goods of the defendants.

The plaintiff's claim is unfair since it was issued a tax invoice to prove the service cost of the damaged companies, including the defendants, in terms of compensation for damage.

Judgment

According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5, and 6, the fact that the plaintiff issued a tax invoice with respect to the service costs that the plaintiff sought against the defendants in this case is recognized.

However, the above facts alone are insufficient to recognize the fact that the Plaintiff exempted the Defendants from the above service charges, and there is no evidence to prove otherwise.

(E) In other words, if the Plaintiff exempted the Defendants from the service costs, there seems to be no reason to issue a tax invoice even when the Plaintiff bears the value-added tax. The Defendants’ assertion cannot be accepted.

Therefore, in conclusion, Defendant B Co., Ltd., the service cost of KRW 15,882,570; Defendant C Co., Ltd., the service cost of KRW 20,109,870; Defendant D, the service cost of KRW 22,856,680; and each said money.