The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The defendant of the grounds for appeal did not have any damage, such as changing the structure of the oil station storage tank as stated in the judgment below.

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant can be found to have damaged the wall of the gas station storage tank as shown in the judgment of the court below by destroying the wall of the gas station storage tank and connecting it to the pipe. Thus, the above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

A. On May 16, 2014, the Defendant concluded a lease agreement with the victim E on D gas stations in Pyeongtaek-si C (hereinafter “instant gas stations”).

The gas stations of this case have five storage tanks in the gas stations of this case, which are the order of gasoline, 1, 2, gasoline, 3, 4, gasoline, and 5. The tank of this case is the order of oil, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 1, and 4, 1, 1, and 5, 5, 5, 5.

B. On June 2, 2014, before delivering the gas station of this case to the Defendant, the victim inspected the inside of the tank through the company around June 2, 2014, and no particular problem was found.

From July 1, 2014, the Defendant commenced gas station business, and around July 16, 2014, the soil contamination was inspected. At the same time, it was confirmed that two gasoline tanks were gasoline tanks.

(c)

The Defendant was unable to operate the gas station due to personal circumstances, and was introduced through another person.

G entered into a lease agreement on the instant gas station with the victim on November 20, 2014, and began to operate the gas station from December 8, 2014.

A victim terminated the lease contract with G around January 7, 2015, and was handed over from G around May 22, 2015.

(d)

On May 23, 2015, the victim Nos. 1, 2, and 3 of the storage tank of the gas station of this case in the course of the inspection conducted to hand over L around May 23, 2015.