1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal do not differ significantly from the allegations in the first instance court except for those emphasizing the following claims in this court, and even if the evidence submitted in the first instance court was presented to this court, the Defendants, a financial institution, engaged in abnormal business operations in violation of relevant provisions while handling the business related to the deceased U U’s inherited property.

It is insufficient to recognize that the Defendants did not unfairly provide information on the existence of the U.S. deposit account or the number of deposits, and further refused to return the deposit to the Plaintiff.

The fact-finding and judgment of the first instance court that did not recognize any damage caused by any illegal act shall be recognized as legitimate.

B. Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is that “Death on March 23, 2012,” “Death on March 8, 2012,” “Death on March 8, 2012,” “N” of the 7th, 12, and 7th, was changed to “L”, and “The trade name was changed to “DefendantN” of the 7th, 7th, and “AT” of the 7th, 4th, was changed to Defendant L on June 4, 2018, and “AT” of “AT” of the 7th, 7th, 19, and 20th, 7th, as “AR,” and “N corporation” of “N corporation” of the 8th, 5th, as “N corporation”, and “other than the 18th, 4th, the Plaintiff added it to “N corporation” under the main sentence of the Civil Procedure Act, and thus, the judgment of the court below is justified.

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion was deceased on March 8, 2012, and then the Plaintiff did not know each deposit account and amount, etc. held by the Plaintiff U at the request of the Defendants’ responsible person, and documents for the inheritance of deposits.