1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Basic Facts

The plaintiff is a company established for the purpose of general trade business, such as steel, and the defendant is a company established for the purpose of warehouse business.

A (hereinafter referred to as “A”) and B (hereinafter referred to as “B”) are operated by both C (hereinafter referred to as “C”) by companies established for the purpose of export and import of steel products, wholesale and retail business, etc.

Since 2008, the Plaintiff imported steel materials and supplied them to A, and has maintained the transactional relationship with B from 2012.

On May 15, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a steel goods supply contract with A, and agreed to pay the price after 90 days from the end of the month of release. On August 13, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a steel goods supply contract with B and agreed to pay the price after 90 days from the date of customs clearance.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 4 (including serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the gist of the plaintiff's assertion as to the whole of the pleadings, the plaintiff imported steel materials Nos. 1,052.06 tons and stored them in the defendant's warehouse.

Although the Defendant had the duty to deliver the said steel materials according to the Plaintiff’s instruction, in violation of this duty, transferred 831.162 tons of them to B (hereinafter “the instant steel materials”), thereby causing damage equivalent to KRW 373,301,451, which is the import price, to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the above damages.

In light of the following circumstances, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff at the first instance and the first instance trial alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant delivered the steel materials of this case to B without the Plaintiff’s instruction or consent, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant delivered the steel materials of this case to B without the Plaintiff’s consent.

The plaintiff's assertion is based on different premise.