1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation that processes and sells fishery products, transports, etc., and the Defendant is a retired teacher, the Defendant’s Intervenor, and the Defendant’s Intervenor, a person who engages in the business of processing rice products and seaweeds in the name of “F” in Jeonnam-gun E.

B. The mark of the trade ledger (Evidence A) submitted by the Plaintiff is indicated with the name of "G", the Defendant’s second name.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 3

2. The parties' assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was verbally concluded by the Defendant upon requesting the Plaintiff to make a rapid settlement and storage of the birth price, and then the Plaintiff kept the Defendant’s living interest in the Plaintiff’s freezing warehouse from January 26, 2012 to November 22, 2013. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 11,50,000 calculated by deducting the Plaintiff’s living interest from the amount of KRW 3,000,000, and the amount of KRW 11,000,000 (monthly 50,000 x 22 months (from January 26, 2012 to November 22, 2013).

B. The summary of the argument by the Defendant and the Intervenor’s Intervenor entrusted the custody of each of the instant participants upon the request of the Defendant’s Intervenor, and notified that each of the instant participants was owned by the Intervenor and was requested by the Intervenor. As such, the instant each of the instant participants was not the Defendant but the Intervenor’s Intervenor.

3. Determination as to the cause of action

A. As seen earlier, the fact that the name of "G" as the defendant's name is indicated on the health stand as to whether the parties to the storage contract of this case are the defendants, and on the mark of the transaction log (Evidence A No. 3) submitted by the plaintiff is indicated.

B. However, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 3, 5, and 6 as well as the purport of the entire pleadings, there is sufficient room to regard each of the instant vegetation as the Defendant, not the Defendant, as the Defendant’s

1...