1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

(a) The network B opened each account with the Defendant for a time deposit (Account Number C) and for a neighbored time deposit (Account Number D).

B. On April 3, 2012, the deceased on April 3, 2012, the deceased’s heir, E, F, Plaintiff A, G, and H, a spouse.

C. On June 16, 2015, the Defendant deposited KRW 45,475,600 with the deposited person as the deceased’s co-inheritors, including the Plaintiff, on the ground that the deceased’s will or the heir’s entitlement to the contributory portion was not verifiable and it was impossible to specifically identify the inheritance shares of the deceased co-inheritors.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In the case of a relative and unforeseeable repayment deposit with regard to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit, there is a favorable judgment in favor of any other depositor to claim the withdrawal of the deposited goods in order for one of the deposited parties to claim the withdrawal of the deposited goods. Thus, in such a case, seeking confirmation of the claim for the withdrawal of deposited goods against a third party who is not the deposited party cannot be deemed as a benefit of confirmation.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da35596 Decided October 23, 2008). In light of the above, the deposit of this case only has the nature as a relative repayment deposit, and thus, it cannot be deemed that there is a benefit to seek confirmation of the right to claim the payment of deposit against the defendant who is not specified as the principal of the deposit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is unlawful and thus dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.