1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 57,014,249 and to the plaintiff on March 2014.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as follows, except for the determination of the Plaintiff’s additional assertion in the court of first instance as to this case under the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, and thus, the same is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. Parts to be determined additionally

A. If the Plaintiff asserted that he/she had not concluded a new lease contract with the Defendant on March 6, 2013, the Plaintiff succeeded to the lessee status and received the right to claim the return of the lease deposit from C, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to return the lease deposit amount KRW 150 million to the Plaintiff, the lessee upon the termination of the lease.

B. Upon examining the occurrence of the duty to return the lease deposit, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 6, and 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5, witness I and F testimony of the court of first instance, and fact-finding with the head of the original office of the court of first instance: ① When the issue of tax delinquency due to the issuance of tax invoice was at issue, F, who actually operated the gas station of this case, decided to transfer the gas station of this case to the plaintiff, who was the child of D, around March 6, 2013; ② on March 6, 2013, the defendant added the plaintiff's personal information to the tenant column of the lease contract (the first tenant No. 2012, Feb. 29, 2012) and on the same day, the plaintiff maintained the tenant's right to operate the gas station of this case to the plaintiff No. 320, Mar. 21, 2013.