2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. On March 7, 2006, E died, and there is Plaintiff B, C, Defendant, F, and G as his wife’s heir.

B. On August 11, 2005, the network E received KRW 40,053,877 as cancer diagnosis insurance money from the KIB Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “SIB”) and this money was immediately deposited from GIB to the Defendant’s bank account.

C. On April 6, 2006 after the death of the network E, the Defendant received KRW 22,068,300 as the heir’s representative with the consent of the heir of the network E, and the amount of KRW 22,068,30 as the beneficiary’s legal heir of the network E.

[Ground of recognition] Class A evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 4 and 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant opened and manages the network E account, received not only KRW 62,122,177 in total of the insurance money of the network E (22,068,300 in death insurance money of KRW 40,053,877 in case of cancer diagnosis) but also KRW 20,073,173,173,280,895 in case of death insurance money of KRW 5,021,120 in case of the network E (hereinafter referred to as the "AI life insurance money").

As Plaintiff A inherited 3/13 of the above insurance proceeds, Plaintiff B, and C’s respective above insurance proceeds due to the death of the network E, the Defendant did not distribute the above insurance proceeds received from the Plaintiffs in proportion to their shares of inheritance.

Therefore, since the defendant acquired the amount equivalent to the plaintiffs' share of inheritance from the insurance money he received without any legal ground, it should return to the plaintiffs the amount equivalent to the plaintiffs' share of unjust enrichment.

B. (1) As to the fact that the defendant of the AIA bio-resources received the network AI insurance proceeds, there is not any evidence to acknowledge it solely with the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 3 and 4.