1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendants completed the registration of ownership transfer on the Incheon Yeonsu-gu D and E land on August 8, 2013, and conducted gas station business on the ground around that time.

(hereinafter “instant gas station”). B.

However, since around 2015, the instant gas station site and the instant gas station site were expropriated as a project zone A urban development project was conducted with the area of the relevant gas station. With respect to oil, such as gasoline stored in the oil tank in the said gas station, Incheon District Court (No. 256) went into effect in 2017.

(hereinafter “instant auction procedure”). C.

In the auction procedure of this case, the “oil 27,124 liter, light oil 22,288 liter, light oil 2,733 liter” was presented as the subject of auction, and the appraiser appraised the market price of the subject of auction as 63,003,00 won (i.e., gasoline 35,532,000 won (i.e., gasoline 25,074,000 won).

F on August 18, 2017, at the auction procedure of this case, the bid price was awarded in KRW 63,003,00 and paid the price.

E. As a result, oil stored in the oil tank of the instant gas station was discharged, the actual quantity of the oil was 24,243 liter, light oil 18,425 liter, light oil 3,444 liter.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 4, 6 through 11, Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In the auction procedure of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the “oil 27,124 liter, light oil 22,288 liter, light oil 2,733 liter” as reported by the Defendants was presented as the object of auction. The successful bidder paid 63,003,00 won corresponding thereto.

However, unlike the auction subject matter presented, F actually received oil was gasoline 24,243 liter, light oil 18,425 liter, light oil 3,444 liter, and F paid in excess of 7,497,00 won as seen below [the table].

[mark] Accordingly, the Defendants are liable to F for settlement corresponding to the above excess payment.