1. The plaintiffs' primary claim and the conjunctive claim are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiffs and the defendant are the children of the network F (hereinafter “the network”) and the network G.

B. From December 30, 2005 to July 9, 2012, the net G resided with the deceased in the G apartment I (hereinafter “instant apartment”) during the period of Ansan-gu, the ownership of the apartment from around December 30, 2005 to around July 9, 2012.

After the death of the deceased G, the deceased completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the deceased on the apartment of this case.

C. Meanwhile, on February 27, 2010, the Defendant purchased from that time to reside in the said apartment, which is next Dong-ho (hereinafter “Defendant apartment”) of the instant apartment, and resided in the said apartment, and on November 201, 2013, the Deceased resided in the said apartment with Mauritius.

On October 2013, a lease contract was concluded with K and lease deposit amounting to KRW 300 million with respect to the apartment of this case. A lease contract was concluded with L and lease deposit amounting to KRW 400 million with respect to the lessee around September 2015.

E. The Deceased died on November 27, 2016.

At the time of death, active property in the name of the deceased is the apartment of this case equivalent to KRW 510 million in the market value. The apartment of this case is the small property, and it is the obligation to return the lease deposit of KRW 400 million in relation to the apartment of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the main claim

A. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion was that the deceased extended a total of KRW 600 million to the defendant before his birth without setting a deadline for three times as follows.

The deceased died and succeeded to the claim for the return of loans to the deceased against the defendant by 1/5 each, and the plaintiffs notified the defendant to pay the above loans by the delivery of a duplicate of the complaint of this case. Thus, the defendant is liable to pay each of the above KRW 120 million to the plaintiffs and delay damages.

1) On February 2010, the Deceased borrowed KRW 200 million to the Defendant as the Defendant was insufficient to purchase the apartment.