1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the Defendants in the judgment is modified as follows.

Defendant A and C shall be the Plaintiff.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the part against the Defendants in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the addition or dismissal as set forth in paragraphs (2) and (3) below, and thus, it is accepted by the main text of Article 420

2. On the third page of the judgment of the court of first instance, the entry of the additional or further specifications is as follows: “In the event that an accident (i.e., the suspension of business and the punishment of fines for negligence) occurred due to fake petroleum or any other oil selling business during the operation of the gas station of this case, Defendant A bears all the economic and administrative responsibilities arising therefrom, and the lease deposit (hereinafter “lease deposit”) is reverted to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant lease deposit agreement”).”

The "2. Judgment on the Request to Defendant C" of the first instance court's decision (the part corresponding to Forms 5, 19, 6, and 3 of the first instance court's decision) shall be stated as follows:

According to the above facts, Defendant C is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for damages equivalent to KRW 120,00,000 in total and KRW 15,520,000 in the cost of cleaning oil tanks during the period of revocation of the registration as well as KRW 135,520,00 in total while operating the gas station in this case with Defendant A. As such, Defendant C is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for the unpaid electricity charges of the gas station in this case and the water supply charges paid by the Plaintiff.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff claims damages of KRW 30,00,000, asserting that the lessor would normally exempt a new lessee from the rent for a six-month period, and that the lessor incurred damages equivalent to KRW 30,000,000, which is the rent for six-month period, according to such practice. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the aforementioned practice asserted by the Plaintiff.