1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Plaintiff’s assertion

In light of the following facts, a deposit contract with respect to 180 tons each other (hereinafter “instant deposit contract”) was concluded between the original and the Defendant.

Since September 2016, the Plaintiff imported the frozen horse in China and sold it to D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”).

However, in early 2017, D suggested that "the growth string in a state in which the string and the decline are not removed" to the Plaintiff means the growth string in a state in which the string and the decline are not removed. When importing B and leaving them to a processing company specializing in the string of the string, the Plaintiff requests the Plaintiff to supply the products to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff is the processing company and the buyer of the products would take over the products from the processing company if the Plaintiff orders to do so."

In accordance with the proposal of this case, the Plaintiff imported the 180 tons of the 17th of January 16, 2017 and stored the whole quantity in the warehouse operated by the Defendant.

The plaintiff's director E supervised the above scene, and the defendant was aware that E is the plaintiff's director.

E is the plaintiff at the time of the above entry to the defendant

In accordance with the audience, it clearly stated that the skin should be released, and the defendant issued E a certificate of acceptance for the above 180 tons of the horses.

At the time of the above entry, the Plaintiff: (a) placed a list of the company operating a bonded warehouse that the Plaintiff stated as the owner of the goods; and (b) placed a list to the Defendant on February 7, 2017, approximately one week prior to the first shipment of the date of the entry into the warehouse on February 13, 2017, which was the first shipment.

The letter is sent.

However, the Defendant released and disposed of 110 tons of the matrine, which should be kept in custody pursuant to the instant deposit contract, without the Plaintiff’s instruction.

Since the Defendant’s obligation to return deposited goods was impossible, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff damages amounting to KRW 550,000,000 (=10 tons x 5,000 won increased by KRW 1kg).

On the other hand, on November 13, 2017, the Plaintiff's claim for the purchase price of goods against D's Defendant 430,410,121.