1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Basic facts

A. On February 7, 2018, the Plaintiff sent a coffee crushing machine to the Busan plane captain via C Co., Ltd. (D). The said coffee crushing machine was destroyed.

B. Around February 2018, the Plaintiff sent out a door-to-door distribution to the original ginseng of the wife population at the Yeong-gun E from G (F) via G Co., Ltd. (F). Around February 2018, 2018, which led to the destruction of the sorafing leaf.

(b) The instant door-to-door vessels of paragraphs (a) and (b) above are collectively referred to.

The defendant is taking charge of the collection of office work of a home-based distribution company, such as D and F, in the trade name of H from the Jincheon-gun G in the Gyeongbuk-gun of the Republic of Korea, and was responsible for the collection of office work of the instant home-based distribution.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 8, Eul evidence No. 1 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. On February 2018, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff was destroyed while transporting the goods owned by the Plaintiff (safining leafs and coffee crushings) sent by the Plaintiff on a door-to-door basis.

In addition, the Defendant, upon the collection of the instant door-to-door, should refuse the consignment if it is inappropriate to transport the goods such as the goods prohibited from handling at the time of the collection of goods and the items prohibited from absolute collection, but the goods owned by the Plaintiff were damaged during the course of transportation of the instant door-to-door ship by being entrusted with the instant door-to-door ship.

Therefore, as a result, the Plaintiff’s property damages should be paid KRW 200,000,00, 1500,000,000, 1720,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00 for clifs and coffee.

B. 1) Determination 1) In light of the above facts, the parties to the contract of carriage appear to be D or F, and the Plaintiff did not assert or prove the grounds on which the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff as a party to the contract.

On the other hand, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is illegal.