1. The defendant shall pay 54,950,002 won to each of the plaintiffs and 15% per annum from December 8, 2018 to the day of complete payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff’s father, father C (hereinafter “the deceased”) held each of the deposits listed in the separate sheet against the Defendant (hereinafter “instant deposits”).

B. As the Deceased died on September 19, 2018, the Plaintiffs, their successors, D, E, and F inherited the instant deposit claim according to their respective inheritance shares 1/5.

[Ground of Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of claim, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiffs 54,950,002 won each (i.e., total amount of deposits in this case 274,750,010 x 1/5) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from December 8, 2018 to the date of full payment, as claimed by the plaintiffs.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant asserts to the effect that the exercise of the right to claim the payment of all co-inheritors is based on the intention of all co-inheritors in principle. Thus, the defendant's claim for the payment of all co-inheritors cannot be complied with.

On the other hand, where an ancestor died, the inheritor succeeds to the comprehensive rights and obligations on the property of the inheritee from the time of commencement of the inheritance (Article 1005 of the Civil Act). In a case where a divisible claim, such as a monetary claim, has been jointly inherited, the obligee shall naturally be divided and reverted to the co-inheritors according to the statutory share of inheritance at the time of commencement of the inheritance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Do5338, Jun. 30, 2006; 2014Du122, May 4, 2016). The above reason alleged by the Defendant is merely the Defendant’s internal business guidelines, and thus, it cannot be a ground for refusing the Plaintiffs’ claim for payment. Therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

B. The defendant shall deposit for performance.