1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On March 18, 2010, the Plaintiff was detained as a violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act. On August 27, 2010, upon request from D, a branch office, the Plaintiff: (a) ordered the lessor to order the officetel No. 103 of Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul, to the lessor; and (b) had the lessor keep this article in the logistics warehouse.

B. Around August 27, 2010 upon the Plaintiff’s request, D received refund of KRW 1,512,210, the remainder after ordering the lessor to issue an officetel and deducting the rent, management fee, etc. in arrears with the deposit of KRW 5 million, which was 1,200,000 ( KRW 900,000 on August 27, 2010) and requesting the House Center to keep the Plaintiff’s instant movable property (hereinafter “the instant movable property”) in the goods storage.

C. From August 27, 2010, E Logistics, which was kept in custody of the instant movable through the Center, was not deposited with the storage fees of 495,000 won (3 times per 165,000 won per 165,000 won for three months) other than those deposited through the Center, and even if the Center communicates with the mobile phone number (F) known that it is the owner of the instant movable, it was denied the fact of the custody by the telephone, and then, it was notified to the Center around October 2012, and then discarded the instant movable property in accordance with the terms of the Cargo Storage Brokerage Contract.

On March 21, 2013, the Plaintiff released the Plaintiff.

[Grounds for recognition] The items of evidence Nos. 1 to 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Defendant was the custodian of the instant movable property without any justifiable reason, and embezzled without returning it to the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant movable property. Accordingly, the Defendant sought the return of the instant movable property. During that period, the Plaintiff sought damages of KRW 60,000,000 as the amount of damage incurred due to mental and material loss incurred due to the Plaintiff’s failure to recover the instant movable property.

3. The Plaintiff’s claim of this case was kept in custody of the Defendant around August 27, 2010.