1. The plaintiff's claim of this case against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

1. Grounds for recognition of basic facts: Gap evidence 3 through 7, and Eul evidence 3 are the defendants' children of E and F, and Eul was divorced from F on February 7, 2016, and Eul died on July 77, 2016, and the defendants are their successors.

The Defendants were decided to render an adjudication on the inheritance limited recognition of Chuncheon District Court 2017 Madan10000.

2. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff paid the following amount to the non-party E, and there exists a right to claim reimbursement of expenses under the Civil Act. Therefore, the defendants, the inheritor, are liable to pay each of 28,122,500 won and delay damages.

Preliminaryly, the plaintiff has a mandatory's right to claim reimbursement of expenses under Article 688 of the Civil Code.

The title Samsung Bio Bio-Life Law Firm Law Firm 14,400,000,000,000 Won 5,000,000 G Attorney G Office's 2,000,000,000 daily living expenses of KRW 3,500,000,000,000, in total of KRW 1,500,000,000, in exchange for transport surveillance expenses and meetings, such as Pyeongtaek Ho-si Prisons of KRW 3,500,00,000, in total of KRW 56,245,000, in total of KRW 7,000,000 for post office accounts transfer of KRW 1,50,000,00.

3. Determination

A. In order to establish the administration of affairs, first of all, it is required that the administration of affairs is another person's business and there is an intention to vest in another person the actual interest in the administration of affairs on behalf of another person, and further it is not clear that the administration of affairs is disadvantageous to the principal or against his will.

Here, “Proceedings to handle affairs for another person” can be jointly and severally against the will of the manager for his/her own interest, and there is no need to externally indicate it, and there is no need to determine it at the time of managing the affairs

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da30882, Aug. 22, 2013). However, the Plaintiff voluntarily asserted that a de facto marital relationship had existed with Nonparty E, and the case F filed against the Plaintiff for damages (this Court Decision 2016Ra63965), and the “Plaintiff” concluded an inappropriate relationship with Nonparty E.