1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Purport of claim and appeal

1. Purport of the claim.

1. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant is liable to pay 53,460,000 won, which is equivalent to the above 15 amount of damages, as the defendant damaged or lost the gold punishment due to the management negligence while the defendant kept 15 gold-type 15 gold-type as stated in the attached Table 1 list owned by the plaintiff.

B. As to this, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff’s gold punishment in the Defendant’s custody is not the gold punishment listed in the attached Table 1, but the 16 gold punishment listed in the attached Table 2, and that the Plaintiff urged the Plaintiff to accept the said gold punishment.

2. Determination

A. Each gold set forth in No. 10 to 15 of the Schedule 1 is identical to each gold set out in No. 11 to 15 of the Schedule 2, and the fact that the defendant's custody of the above gold punishment is not a dispute between the parties.

Therefore, it is examined as to whether the Plaintiff had the Defendant keep the respective gold punishment listed in the separate sheet No. 1 through No. 9 (hereinafter referred to as “gold punishment”), except for the portion without dispute among the gold punishment listed in the separate sheet No. 1, as alleged by the Plaintiff.

B. The plaintiff asserted that the light industry of the non-party light industry (hereinafter " light industry") was in custody of the plaintiff's gold, but the light industry of the plaintiff's light industry was entrusted to the defendant on July 28, 2009 when the light industry was in custody of the light industry, and the defendant started to keep the light industry by delivering the gold subject to dispute to the defendant on July 30, 2009. As such, as to whether the light industry delivered the gold subject to dispute to the defendant and kept the gold subject to dispute, the light industry was merely a gold storage certificate prepared by the light industry to the plaintiff regardless of the defendant, and the light industry was merely a gold storage certificate prepared by the light industry to the plaintiff, regardless of whether the defendant was in custody of the gold subject to dispute. The statement of transaction list (Evidence A2) issued by the court of the defendant's operation by the light industry is the transferee of the defendant's side.