1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

. If the obligation of delivery is not fulfilled, the person shall be liable to pay for damages the amount of 900,000 won at that value and any delay in its payment.

3. According to the reasoning of the evidence Nos. 8 through 10 and the purport of the entire pleadings, following the suspension of transaction with the Defendant after around 2016, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to return all gold-types produced and stored at the Plaintiff’s request, including the gold-types in this case. Accordingly, the Defendant, at the Plaintiff’s request, returned all gold-types 29 items among the gold-types produced and stored at the Plaintiff’s request on May 31, 2017, and the gold-type 25 items listed in the separate sheet Nos. 3 as of March 29, 2019, as of March 29, 2019, respectively, to the Plaintiff. As such, the difference between the gold-type No. 1 and the gold-type No. 3 as indicated in the separate sheet No. 1 as of March 29, 2019 and the gold-type No. 1981/25, supra, from among the gold-types returned on March 29, 2019.

The number of goods is the same, and the "726-6" appears to be an abbreviationd "90726-6";

In light of the statement (No. 41) No. 6 B among the gold papers listed in the separate sheet No. 2 list returned on May 31, 2017 and returned on May 31, 2017, the size seems to be “3/8*16*69.8”

Since the number of goods is the same, "728-69" seems to be an abbreviationd "90728-69".

It seems that it is the same gold punishment as one another.

Therefore, since the gold penalty of this case is considered to have already been returned, the plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims are without merit.

4. In conclusion, the plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.