2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant (appointed party) and the remaining designated parties.

A. On January 29, 2008, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 13.3 million in the Defendant’s husband’s account in the name of husband E.

B. E died on July 2008, and the Selection C and D are children of E.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff organized the number system of KRW 50 million on September 2007, and the Defendant joined the 1/2 old unit (No. 5, No. 25).

Around January 2008, the Defendant received KRW 50 million from 50,000,000,000 from her husband E, and the Defendant changed the transfer of KRW 13,3.3 million to E’s account.

After that, the defendant did not pay 30,000,000 won of the fraternity even after receiving the fraternity money, so it is necessary to return the fraternity money already received to the unjust enrichment.

However, among the fraternitys that the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant, the KRW 13.3 million transferred to the account in the name of E shall be deemed to have been paid by E at the Defendant’s request. Since E agreed to adjust the fraternitys that the Defendant did not pay to the Plaintiff, E is obligated to return the above KRW 13.3 million to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, according to inheritance shares, the defendant, the heir of E, is obligated to pay KRW 5.7 million and the remaining designated parties, KRW 3.8 million, respectively.

(The plaintiff asserted that he lent the above money to E in the first instance trial and changed the cause of the claim as above). (B)

Judgment

Even according to the plaintiff's assertion, it was the defendant that he paid the fraternitys organized by the plaintiff, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the plaintiff's assertion that he received the money of KRW 13.3 million from the defendant's request that he would receive the money of KRW 13.3 million from the account in the name of E, or that E would return the fraternitys.

3. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant and the remaining designated parties is dismissed as it is without merit.