1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added in the trial are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows. The parties who concluded the oil supply contract with the plaintiff are not sufficient to acknowledge the facts that they are the defendant, or the witness I of the trial at the court of first instance is the same as the reasoning of the court of first instance, except for the rejection of the statements of evidence Nos. 20, 21, and 22 and the witness I of the trial which are difficult to believe, and thus, they are cited in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

【Judgment on Preliminary Claim】 If it is difficult to view that the oil supply contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the Defendant used the oil supplied by the Plaintiff for its own business without any legal ground, and the Defendant is obligated to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the oil price stated in the purport of the claim to the Plaintiff. However, in light of the circumstances acknowledged earlier, the Defendant’s fee for each of the instant lease agreements concluded with B was included in the oil price, and the Defendant paid a part of the oil price directly to the supplier under the direct payment agreement with B, it is difficult to view that the obligation to return unjust enrichment belongs to the Defendant solely on the basis of the facts alleged by the Plaintiff, and there is no specific assertion suggesting otherwise to derive the obligation to return unjust enrichment. Therefore, the Plaintiff

2. In conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate. Thus, the plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added in the trial are dismissed as it is without merit.