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

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Da274188, May 17, 2017). Meanwhile, barring special circumstances, it is reasonable to presume the Plaintiff’s existence as a deceased person, barring special circumstances, insofar as the Plaintiff is recognized as a deceased person and the Plaintiff’s existence of a deceased person is very exceptional. However, it is reasonable to presume that the Plaintiff’s existence is a deceased person by the age of 110, barring special circumstances, in light of all the aforementioned facts, in a case where the Defendant is easily deemed to have already died before the instant lawsuit was filed, the fact of death may be ratified if it is readily concluded that the Defendant

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da5873 delivered on April 26, 2002). According to the health class, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 as to this case, defendant B married to Eul on March 5, 1927 with Eul and had children, E and F among them. However, it can be acknowledged that the F died on June 13, 1937, E on April 12, 1946, and D on July 3, 1949, respectively. Thus, if defendant B was alive at the time of the lawsuit in this case, it is a person of 112 years of age, and since there is no material to deem that a person is alive until the age of 110, it belongs to a very rare example, and there is no other material to deem that the defendant B is alive at the time of the lawsuit in this case, the defendant B had already died at the time of the lawsuit in this case.

Therefore, the lawsuit against the defendant B is unlawful as it is brought against the deceased.

On the other hand, there is no particular evidence to confirm that Defendant B was the heir, and the Plaintiff did not specifically specify Defendant B’s heir and correct the Defendant’s indication. Thus, the instant lawsuit is a lawsuit against Defendant B’s heir.