All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Intervenor, and the remainder are assessed against the Intervenor.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s payment of the deposit amount corresponding to the Plaintiffs’ inheritance shares to the remaining inheritors is not valid as a repayment made to quasi-Possessor of the claim pursuant to Article 470 of the Civil Act, on the ground that it is reasonable to view that the Defendant’s payment of the deposit amount equivalent to

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on repayment to quasi-Possessors of claims, etc.

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s defense that, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, the deceased’s intent on the testament withdrawal No. 2 was to withdraw all forms of wills previously made, the deceased asserted the effect of testamentary gift with AL and AM as testamentary donee before such withdrawal.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to this part of the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the interpretation of a notarial deed revoking a will, which is a disposal document, by mistake of facts, omission

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant’s Intervenor and the remainder are assessed against the Defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.