1. The plaintiffs' appeal and the defendant's appeal against the plaintiff B are all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be individually counted.

1. The reasons why the court shall explain this case by the court of first instance for the acceptance of the judgment of the first instance

2.(c)

2) b) The reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is the same as that of the part of the judgment, except for adding the one mentioned below to the end of paragraph (1) (the latter part of paragraph (7) (the second part of section 7) (the second part shall be referred to as "the second part"), and thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence

“On the other hand, the Defendant asserts to the effect that, upon the occurrence of a dispute between the deceased’s children, the deceased’s revocation of donation to the Defendant and the direct management and use of compensation money. Accordingly, according to the overall purport of the statement and arguments in the Health Team, No. 29, No. 33, 34, and 37, part of the above compensation deposited under the name of the Defendant appears to have been paid as the payment for the AW Housing Construction Corporation or deposited into the deceased’s regular deposit account under the name of the deceased, when the name of the deceased was concluded in the name of the deceased. However, there is no objective evidence supporting the deceased’s revocation of donation to the Defendant (i.e.,, there is no objective evidence supporting that the deceased’s revocation of donation to the Defendant due to a dispute between children, it is difficult to understand that the deceased still managed the donation to the Defendant’s deposit account

(2) The above deposit money is deemed to have been used for various purposes, as it is mixed with other funds in the deposit account in the name of the defendant, and ③ part of the deposit money was used for the deceased.

Even if this can be returned to the Defendant’s use of the donation money by the deceased’s children, it cannot be readily concluded that it was used by the deceased, and (4) the evidence and the circumstances alleged by the Defendant alone are insufficient to recognize that the amount withdrawn from the above deposit account under the Defendant’s name was used as the Defendant’s assertion. In light of the above recognition alone, the above fact alone is against the Defendant regarding the amount equivalent to the above deposit money