1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant F is the spouse of the deceased who completed a marriage report on September 18, 1961 and Defendant B, C, D, and E are children of the deceased.

B. The Plaintiff is a person who had maintained the relationship with the deceased from around 1982 to 1985 until the deceased died.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence No. 3-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff would be responsible for the Plaintiff’s female life as a de facto marital couple for not less than 30 years, and agreed that the Plaintiff will also grant the Plaintiff the remaining property upon his death.

In addition, the plaintiff has opened the deceased who suffered from urology for not less than 30 years until the time of the deceased's death, but there was no other consideration except H apartment 1, Dong 803, which had been living together by the deceased.

Therefore, the Plaintiffs, who are the inheritors of the Deceased, are obligated to pay KRW 400 million to the Defendant as unjust enrichment equivalent to the above donation or nursing expenses according to the inheritance shares.

B. First of all, as to whether the deceased promised to give the remaining property to the Plaintiff upon the death of the deceased, the statement in the Health Team and the evidence No. 1-1 to No. 4 are insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit

Next, with respect to the assertion of unjust enrichment equivalent to the opening cost, the health room and the nursing room refer to assist the deceased in the event that it is not possible to make his basic daily activities due to disability, disease, etc., which is separate from the nursing room to the extent of his guardian’s care during his hospitalization. In this case, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the above opening is necessary, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is also necessary.