1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added in the trial are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. Basic facts E (Death on June 26, 2014) and F (Death on February 14, 2014) were legally married couples and children of 3 South and North Korea, including the Plaintiff and G. However, G died on April 22, 201, and Defendant C and D, who is the spouse, succeeded to G’s property.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The main point of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Network E lent or stored KRW 3,00,000 to the Network G on July 24, 2006, or the 16.16.3,000,000, or the Republic of Korea during the period of time on September 30, 2008, or the amount of 7,000,000,000 to the Do governor. The Do governor did not return it to the Do governor.

Therefore, the Defendants, who inherited the net G’s obligations, are obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount stated in the primary purport of the claim corresponding to the Plaintiff’s inherited portion, which is the Plaintiff’s inherited portion.

Preliminaryly, the network E is obligated to pay to the network G the amount stated in the preliminary claim(s) claim(s) for the legal reserve of the Plaintiff, since there is a shortage in the Plaintiff’s legal reserve of inheritance by donating the amount of KRW 3,000,000 on July 24, 2006, KRW 3,000 on June 16, 2008, and KRW 7,000,000 on September 30, 2008. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount as stated in the preliminary claim(s) for the legal reserve of inheritance.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 6, 7, and 8 (including virtual numbers), it is recognized that the network E transferred KRW 7,00,000 to the bank account in the name of the network G on July 24, 2006, KRW 3,000,000, and KRW 7,000 on June 16, 2008, and KRW 7,000,000 on September 30, 2008.

However, only the above recognized facts and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff entrusted the network E with lending the above money or the custody of the said money.

It is not sufficient to recognize that there is a shortage of legal reserve of inheritance of the plaintiff by donating the above money to the deceased E, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's primary claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just and just.