2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendants 1) Defendant C is the Plaintiff’s second children. 2) Defendant C married with Defendant B on June 23, 2014.

B. On June 17, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a deposit contract in the name of the Defendant C with the Korea Saemaul Bank in the name of the Defendants, and entered into a deposit contract in the name of the Defendant C. (2) On February 25, 2016, the Plaintiff, as Defendant B, entered into a deposit contract in the name of the Defendant B with the Korea Saemaul Bank in the name of the Defendant.

3) On March 2, 2017, the Plaintiff, as Defendant C, terminated the deposit deposit in the name of the previous Defendant C, and again concluded a deposit contract in the name of the Defendant C in the separate sheet No. 2 attached hereto. C. The Plaintiff demanded the Defendants to withdraw all deposits and send them to the Plaintiff upon the occurrence of the Defendants’ influence.

2) On August 2, 2017, the Defendants visited the returned Saemaul Depository to change both the seal impression and password of each deposit claim listed in attached Tables 1 and 2. [The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, the result of the order to submit financial transaction information to the returned Saemaul Depository of the court, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff provided deposit money of KRW 13 million to Defendant C so that he/she can find employment in the taxi company, and lent money of KRW 100 million when he/she purchased a private taxi or purchased a house.

The Defendants agreed to pay the said money by paying a certain amount of each month (one million to one million won) while married.

The Plaintiff entered into a deposit contract in the name of the Defendants in order to verify the amount received from the Defendants, and paid a certain amount in the form of installment savings, so the said deposit contract was entrusted to the Defendants in the name of deposit owner.

The plaintiff terminated a title trust agreement with the defendants through the service of the duplicate of the complaint of this case. Thus, the defendants, who are the title holder, are above the plaintiff.