(a)be as shown in the attachment of the claim;

(b) Articles 208 (3) 2 and 150 (3) of the Civil Procedure Act of the applicable provisions of Acts.

2. Claim against Defendant C

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is Defendant B’s wife and the Plaintiff’s saw. As the Plaintiff transferred money to each account under the name of Defendant B together with the Defendant B, Defendant C is jointly and severally liable to pay the remainder deposit amount of KRW 239,198,692, and damages for delay, excluding the amount that the Plaintiff received in part, to the bailor B and the Plaintiff.

B. The judgment was based on the fact that Defendant C and Defendant B were in the status of joint depositee with Defendant C, and that the Plaintiff also consumed the deposit deposited in each account under the name of Defendant B. However, the above circumstance alone cannot be deemed to have established an implied deposit contract between Defendant C and the Plaintiff, rather than the account holder, and otherwise, Defendant C concluded a deposit contract with the Plaintiff as joint deposit custodian with Defendant B.

In fact, there is no evidence to acknowledge that Defendant C used each account of Defendant B as its own account and concluded an implied deposit contract with the Plaintiff as the same economic entity.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion based on the premise that defendant C and defendant B are joint deposit administrators is without merit.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant B is justified, and the claim against the defendant C is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.