1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, from April 2016 to November 201 of the same year, intended to purchase goods from a Chinese E-LLC (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) through D, which was the head of the business division of the Defendant Company.

B. On July 28, 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) entered the Category 4 (hereinafter “instant goods”) in the Defendant Company’s warehouse, which was purchased by Nonparty Company from Nonparty Company; and (b) received a certificate of storage of goods in the following forms from Nonparty D:

C. On July 26, 2017, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant Company to release part of the instant goods, and was notified by the Defendant Company that the instant goods are not kept.

On the other hand, on February 17, 2017, the Defendant Company was decided to authorize the commencement of rehabilitation procedures by Busan District Court 2016 Ma1014, and the rehabilitation procedure for the Defendant Company was completed on March 18, 2019, which is pending in the instant lawsuit.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, 7, 8, and 19, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff proposed that D, the head of the business division of the Defendant Company, free of charge in the warehouse of the Defendant Company, would sell the instant goods from the Nonparty Company. At the time, the Defendant Company reported to the former F, G, etc. of the Defendant Company to the former F, and the employees of the Defendant Company, and then entered into the instant goods in the Defendant Company’s warehouse while the employees of the Defendant Company maintained. Ultimately, the Plaintiff concluded a deposit contract for the storage of the instant goods with D, which is a comprehensive power of attorney, on the ground that the Plaintiff and the Defendant Company concluded a deposit contract for the storage of the instant goods, and thus, the free contract for the instant goods was established between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Company without permission. Nevertheless, the Defendant Company violated the fiduciary duty and sold the instant goods on May 2017. As such, the Defendant Company was active damage to the Plaintiff.