beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff from January 26, 2012 to the same year
2. up to 1.0, the Plaintiff requested the freezing of 15,552 (hereinafter “the instant birth”) to the freezing warehouse owned by the Defendant, and at the time, the Plaintiff agreed to pay the usual storage fees when the Plaintiff ships out of the warehouse.
B. B, C, and D received delegation from the Plaintiff between December 17, 2012 and December 26, 2012, and released 4,750 of the instant births to the Defendant. At that time, D paid KRW 2,50,000 to the Defendant as part of the storage fees for the instant births.
C. At the freezing warehouse owned by the Defendant, the remaining life remains after being taken out as above among the instant colons is kept 10,802.
[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without dispute, evidence No. 1 (including a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply)
(B) entry, the result of the on-site inspection by this Court)
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion, in addition to the instant product, also on February 4, 2012, the Plaintiff entered a total of 16,472 plant with a total of 90 plantrs, requesting the Defendant to freezing the said plant, and from December 22, 2012, following the Plaintiff’s assertion from around December 22, 2012
1. During the period of October, 100, the Defendant intended to deliver all of the above products to the Plaintiff. However, the Defendant refused to deliver only 3,000 won among them, and thereafter, the Defendant arbitrarily disposed of and destroyed the products owned by the Plaintiff and stored them in lieu of the other products. As such, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 67,360,000 in compensation for damages.
B. (1) In light of the statement of evidence No. 1, No. 1, 2012, the fact that the Plaintiff entered the total quantity of 16,472 by inserting 90 parts of the Defendant’s warehouse on February 4, 2012, the Plaintiff’s total quantity of 16,472, the Plaintiff’s total quantity of 16,472 shares. In light of the statement of evidence No. 1, the testimony of Gap No. 1, No. 2, witness E, and F is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise. Rather, the total number of 15.