1. The claims of the plaintiff (appointed party) and the Appointed B are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff (appointed party) and the plaintiff.

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On February 2013, the Defendant, which is the primary cause of the claim, subcontracted soil and sand transport services to the new construction of the C-ground apartment (hereinafter “new construction of this case”) from the Daeyang-si Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “New Construction”), and caused D to enter into an oil supply contract for soil and sand transport vehicles on behalf of the Defendant.

Accordingly, from February 25, 2013 to March 31, 2013, the Plaintiff operating a gas station supplied the Defendant with oil equivalent to KRW 70,653,636 and the designated person who operates the F gas station supplied the Defendant with oil equivalent to KRW 38,925,638 from April 1, 2013 to May 20, 2013.

Therefore, as a party to the above oil supply contract, the defendant is obligated to pay each of the above amounts and damages for delay to the plaintiffs in accordance with the above oil supply contract.

B. Even if the Defendant was not a party to a contract with the Plaintiffs, the Defendant received 496,89,332 won (at least KRW 231,301,118) from the Daedae comprehensive Construction without any legal cause, and did not pay it to the Plaintiffs, thereby resulting in the Plaintiff’s failure to receive oil payment, even though the Defendant supplied oil equivalent to KRW 70,653,636, and 38,925,638, respectively.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiffs the amount of money equivalent to the above oil price and damages for delay as the return of unjust enrichment for the soil and sand transport service cost acquired without any legal cause.

2. Determination

A. D’s determination as to the primary cause of claim; the Plaintiff’s supply of oil equivalent to KRW 70,653,636 from February 25, 2013 to March 31, 2013; the Appointor’s supply of oil equivalent to KRW 38,925,638, respectively, from April 1, 2013 to May 20, 2013, does not conflict between the parties.

Furthermore, whether D signed an oil supply contract on behalf of the defendant with the plaintiffs.