1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.

2. The appeal cost is borne by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: the corresponding parts of the judgment of the court of the first instance other than those stated in the following 2. Amendment are as stated in the corresponding parts of the judgment of the court of the first instance; therefore, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Each “Defendant” of heading 3, 12, 4, and 5 of heading 3, 10, 10 and 5 of heading 12, each “Defendant” of heading 15 is each “Defendant, D, E, F, and G” of heading 12, “Defendant D, E, F, and G” of heading 6 is “D, E, F, and G” of heading 16, each “Defendant” of heading 17, 17, 18, and 19, each “D, E, F, and G” of heading 7, “Defendant” of heading 12 through 11, “Defendant B,” of heading 16 and heading 17, and “Defendant B,” of heading 17, Heading 17, Heading 17, Heading 10, Heading 10, Heading 10, Heading 13, Heading 10, Heading 110, Heading 14, and

D. (1) The Plaintiff asserted the Defendants (i) on July 1, 2012, as the inherited property, the lease deposit and lease income of the commercial building (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) and the real estate indicated in attached Table 3 (hereinafter “instant commercial building”).

Some of the lessees leased and received deposit KRW 10,000,000 from the lessee R. Among them, on July 5, 2012, KRW 800,000 as part of the hospital expenses of the Deceased, and KRW 3,800,000 as the agreed withdrawal fee of the complaint of the former lessee X was properly disbursed KRW 3,00,000, but the remainder was arbitrarily used KRW 6,20,000.

B. From September 8, 2012, the date of commencing the inheritance, the Plaintiff was from September 8, 201 to July 4, 2013.