1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiffs are children of D, who died on January 22, 2015 (hereinafter “the deceased”), and Defendant C is the deceased’s punishment.

B. The registration of ownership transfer was completed in F on May 7, 2014 with respect to the land size of 660 square meters in Inn city owned by the deceased on May 7, 2014, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed in H (F) on May 21, 2014 with respect to the land size of 375 square meters in G owned by the deceased on May 7, 2014 due to sale and purchase on May 7, 2014.

(hereinafter referred to as “the combination of the above E and G land” is each of the instant land (hereinafter referred to as “each”).

On October 2013, the Deceased was hospitalized in a convalescent hospital due to alcohol addiction and dementia symptoms, and was hospitalized in the hospital until January 2015.

The Defendant, on May 7, 2014, remitted F, to its own account, KRW 70 million out of KRW 100 million deposited into the deceased’s account as the purchase price of the real estate, and remitted the remainder of KRW 30 million to its own account on May 26, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 3-7, 8, Gap evidence 4, 8, Eul evidence 2-1, 4-4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Defendant C’s assertion 1) sold each of the instant lands owned by the deceased and received KRW 120 million from the purchase price by taking advantage of the deceased’s work ability of the deceased hospitalized in dementia. As such, Defendant C is obligated to pay damages for tort, the deceased’s heir, the amount of KRW 120 million, and damages for delay. (2) When Defendant C withdraws KRW 100 million from the deceased’s U.S.’s U.C.’s U.C.’s U.C. account, the deceased could not be granted the right of representation for withdrawal of deposit. As such, Defendant C could not be deemed to have paid KRW 100 million to Defendant C who did not have the right of representation. As such, Defendant C’s act of paying KRW 100 million to the deceased’s account cannot be deemed to have been a valid repayment of deposit liability. Accordingly, Defendant C’s U.S. still bears the obligation of deposit amount of KRW 100 million to the Plaintiffs,

(b).