Should the property with a value of 200,000 square meters be discarded as garbage and kept for free?

Personally, I think the property must pay compensation for this, because the property did promise to keep things for women. This behavior of the property satisfies the agreement of custody, but because it is kept for free, the compensation will be less.

We need to be clear about the problem, not to say that giving money to custody can satisfy the legal custody behavior. Your verbal commitment is also in line with the legal significance of guardianship, but it is regarded as unpaid guardianship. But in any case, it belongs to custody. Then, as the trustee, we should fulfill our corresponding responsibilities and take good care of the trustee's goods. Like the property in this case, it is obvious that the custody obligation has not been fulfilled, because the property personnel directly ask Aunt Cleaning to take away the Sifang Collection, which is the subjective behavior of the property personnel, so if Aunt Cleaning burns the Sifang Collection, the property will also compensate. It's just that it may be kept for free, so when making compensation, you don't have to pay so much money, but compensation is definitely inevitable.

One thing, this property is really stupid. Since you verbally promised to keep things for others, you should do your due duty, because your verbal promise is also true and legally recognized. So don't think it doesn't count if you don't pay for it. Legally, it does. It's just a matter of how much compensation. And from a moral point of view, you should do what you promised others. Don't promise verbally and then turn around and forget. Besides, women must be at fault. First of all, can't you keep something so valuable? Besides, if you don't label such valuable things, there is a big problem in itself. So if you really want to go to court, women won't get much compensation, so be careful.

Generally speaking, to compensate, the property must be compensated. This is not the difference between free and paid, but whether it meets the legal custody conditions. Obviously, the property in this case is satisfactory, so compensation must be made.