1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff shall bear the total costs of the lawsuit after an appeal.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. On June 24, 2010, Nonparty E agreed on the lease deposit amounting to KRW 130 million from July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2012, with the lease deposit amounting to KRW 8.8 million from the Defendant, “F station located in Seo-gu Incheon, Incheon, which is the Defendant’s possession (including all of the site and facilities of the gas station and rights based on authorization and permission related to the gas station), and operated it. Nonparty E agreed on the lease deposit amounting to KRW 130 million from July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2012, and reduced the rent by KRW 5 million from the monthly rent.

(2) The Plaintiff, a company engaged in wholesale and retail business, sells transit to E until June 30, 2013, and has a claim for oil price of KRW 94,052,000.

(3) On November 20, 2013, Nonparty D acquired the above gas station business from E, and again entered into a lease contract with the Defendant and the said gas station from November 26, 2013 to November 25, 2015, setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 130,000,000,000 from November 26, 2013 to November 25, 2015, and operated it. The lease deposit was to substitute for the lease deposit paid by E to the Defendant.

(4) The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against D for revocation of a fraudulent act (In Mancheon District Court 2013Kadan9965).

On August 25, 2015, the above court revoked the lease transfer agreement concluded between E and D on November 20, 2013 within the scope of KRW 94,052,00. D, under the instant lease agreement, assigned to E a claim for the return of the lease deposit against the Defendant within the scope of KRW 94,052,00,00, and issued a ruling that “a notice of the assignment of the claim to the Defendant” was final and conclusive on September 12, 2015.

(hereinafter “Prior Judgment”). D notified the Defendant that the claim for the refund of the said lease deposit was transferred in accordance with the above judgment.

(5) D was found to have been committing an unlawful act, such as selling below the quantity at the above gas station, and the Defendant’s registration of the gas station business was revoked for two years from the Defendant’s damage.