1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 245,829,870 and its interest on May 12, 2018.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the determination of the basic facts and the governing law is as follows: (a) the pertinent part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is the same as that of the relevant part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance (including the first to fifth to ten (10)); and (b) thus, it is acceptable in accordance

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. (1) A) A carrier is liable to compensate for damages arising from the loss of, damage to, or delay in arrival of cargo unless he/she proves that himself/herself, the crew, or other employees of the ship have not neglected due care concerning the receipt, loading, legality, transportation, storage, unloading and delivery of the cargo.

(Article 795(1)(b) of the Commercial Act in order to claim compensation for damages against a carrier, it is sufficient to prove the fact that the damage occurred during the carriage in accordance with the transport contract and to prove the fact that the damage occurred in the transport section of the carrier, in addition to the direct proving the fact that the damage occurred in the transport section of the carrier, in addition to the direct proving the fact that the damage occurred in the transport section of the carrier, if the carrier had already been destroyed or damaged, it is sufficient to prove that the cargo was delivered to the carrier in good condition without any defect. However, if the so-called "place clause, such as "the consignor enters the ship and reduces the quantity of the cargo," or "the consignor has to deliver the cargo in good condition to the carrier," such so-called "IOTTTT" should be proved by the carrier's assertion that the delivery of the cargo to the carrier in good condition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da10105, Jun. 26, 2008).