A. The conclusion of a deposit contract between the deceased G and the Defendants and the Plaintiff’s claim for the return of the Plaintiff’s deposit is 1) English nationality net G (hereinafter “the deceased”).

(2) On January 9, 2019, the Deceased died. (2) Prior to the death, the Deceased entered into a deposit contract with the Defendants, a financial institution (hereinafter “stock company”), respectively, with each of the financial institutions, and accordingly, the Defendant FF association owns each of the deposit claims as listed below.

(2) On January 22, 2019, the Defendant’s account number amount No. 1 BH 215,66,562 won 2 CI 75,737 won 3DJ 1,416 won L 71,830 won L 71,038 won 4 EM 48,902,453 won 5 FN 18,000,000 won for the deceased’s lineal descendants, the Plaintiff filed a claim for the return of each of the above deposits with the Defendants after the deceased’s death (as of January 22, 2019, the Defendants refused payment (as of whether the deceased was the sole heir of the deceased or not), and the Defendants’ refusal to make payment (as of the first instance, whether the Plaintiff was the sole heir of the deceased), Defendant B, E, and F creditor’s non-deposit interest 1). Defendant E cannot be seen to include the Plaintiff’s deposit claim in Seoul Central District Court’s deposit Deposit No. 47847. 5,784,75.75.7.7.7.

2) On August 20, 2019, Defendant B was unable to identify who is the heir to receive the deceased’s deposit claims without negligence. Defendant B deposited deposit deposit account amounting to KRW 215,908,710 on the ground of the Seoul Central District Court No. 21353, Sept. 25, 2019, as Seoul Central District Court No. 21353 on the ground of the existence of the obligee’s unknownness under the latter part of Article 487 of the Civil Act. Defendant F cannot be identified without negligence who is the heir to receive the deceased’s deposit claims on September 25, 2019. The Seoul Central District Court No. 24228, May 28, 2019 deposit account claim 18,529.