The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

In the event that a deposit account holder withdraws money from a deposit account that has gone through a real name verification procedure in his/her name, he/she withdraws the money deposited by others with the intent to obtain the money entrusted by others, the act of embezzlement constitutes a tort, or the burden of proving that the act of withdrawing the money by the deposit account holder is illegal is a person who asserts a tort.

The court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning based on its adopted evidence, and determined that the defendant's withdrawal amount was not likely to have been distributed in advance to or succeeded to the account in the name of the defendant or G from the time of the death of the F, and that it was difficult to recognize that the withdrawal amount was deposited or succeeded to by the H as it was actually owned by H since it was actually owned by the defendant or G from the time of the death of the F, and it was insufficient to recognize that the withdrawal amount was deposited or succeeded to by H and was actually owned by H.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the aforementioned legal principles and the record, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of logic and experience and by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the omission of judgment, the inheritance of deposit claims

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.