1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 144,464,037, and the Plaintiff’s KRW 20% per annum from November 6, 2014 to September 30, 2015; and (b) October 1, 2015.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. Facts of recognition 1) B (hereinafter “the deceased”).

On September 3, 2001, the Defendant opened a savings account (number C). On November 20, 201, the date of closing the argument in the instant case, the deposit balance of the said account is KRW 11,029,975, Nov. 20, 2015. 2) The Deceased opened a savings account (number D) with the Defendant on November 15, 2004, and on September 28, 2014, the deposit balance of the said account is KRW 33,434,062.

3) On June 30, 2014, the Deceased, at the notary E office of a notary public, made a testamentary document by having the said notary public, “the deceased will, with the participation of witness F and G, make a testamentary gift including all of the deposits (the Defendant’s account H and D) and all of the property, to the Plaintiff” (hereinafter “instant testamentary gift”).

(4) On August 13, 2014, the Deceased concluded a term deposit contract with the Defendant at an annual interest rate of 2.5% on KRW 100 million, and on August 13, 2016, the Deceased deposited KRW 100 million into the Defendant’s account (number I).

5) The Deceased died on September 27, 2014. [In the absence of any dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entries in Gap evidence 1 through 4, the testimony of witness F, the testimony of this court's Seocho-si Dong and the head of Yongsan-gu Seoul Western Dong and the purport of the entire pleadings.

B. According to the above facts of the judgment, since the plaintiff received the entire property of the deceased as a universal legacy, the defendant is obligated to pay each of the above deposits to the plaintiff.

2. The Defendant’s argument regarding the Defendant’s assertion is: (a) the Deceased terminated the deposit contract (Account Number H) entered in the said notarial deed after the testamentary gift of this case on 45 days; (b) the Defendant concluded a new deposit contract with respect to KRW 100 million returned; (c) the Defendant resisted that the testamentary gift regarding each of the deposits of this case was withdrawn because the act after the testament’s birth conflicts with the will; (d) however, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge the testamentary gift withdrawal by the entries in the evidence No. 1; and (e) there is no other evidence to acknowledge

3...