1. The Defendant’s KRW 6,864,960 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 66% per annum from June 30, 2018 to August 7, 2018.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition 1) The Defendant is a merchant operating a warehouse business in the name of “D” in the territory of “D.” On May 2017, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a contract with the Plaintiff to keep the Spain harvested by the Plaintiff in the Defendant’s warehouse (hereinafter “instant extend storage contract”).

3) In accordance with the instant marina storage contract, the Plaintiff: (a) on June 2, 2017, pursuant to the instant marina storage contract (20 km per network; hereinafter the same month; hereinafter the same shall apply)

4. 200 nets, the same month.

5. 194 networks, the same month;

6. A total of 160 networks (i.e., 406 network 200 network 160 network 194 network 160 network) was put into the Defendant’s warehouse.

4) Around July 11, 2017, approximately one month after the Plaintiff’s entry into a Defendant’s warehouse, a recording phenomenon occurred on the Plaintiff’s Matri, which was kept in the Defendant’s warehouse, and as a result, the Plaintiff became unable to release the said increase. [The reasons for recognition are as follows: (a) evidence Nos. 1 and 3; (b) evidence Nos. 1 and 1; and (c) witness E’s testimony and the purport of the entire

B. A warehouseman cannot be relieved of liability for damages resulting from the loss of or damage to the goods bailed unless he/she proves that neither he/she nor his/her employees have neglected care in connection with the custody thereof.

(Article 160 of the Commercial Act). According to the above facts, since the plaintiff's increase in the number of the plaintiff's goods stored in the defendant's warehouse pursuant to the extended storage contract of this case has been damaged and no value of the goods has been lost, the defendant shall not be relieved of liability for damages arising therefrom unless he/she proves that he/she or his/her employees

I would like to say.

However, since the defendant or his employee did not submit any evidence to prove that he did not neglect to exercise due care in the custody of the above marina, the defendant is not exempt from liability to compensate for damages arising from the damage of the plaintiff's marina that he stored in the defendant's warehouse according to the current custody contract of this case.

On the other hand, the defendant.