The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff falling under the order to pay below shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant are siblings, and the Plaintiff is the remainder of the net C, who died on June 2, 2015, and the Defendant is the remainder of the net C.

B. On August 31, 1981, the deceased C completed the registration of initial ownership with respect to land of KRW 1504 square meters (hereinafter “E land”) prior to Yong-si, Yong-si, and completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to land of KRW 106 square meters prior to the F on April 12, 1982 (hereinafter “F land”). The deceased C sold the land and EF land totaling KRW 80 million on April 27, 2012, and stored KRW 60 million out of the above proceeds to the Defendant.

C. On September 27, 2013, the deceased C demanded the Defendant to return the amount of custody, but the Defendant rejected the return.

On the same day, the transfer contract was concluded between the network C and the Defendant with the content-certified mail to the effect that the net C transfers the claim for the refund of the deposit amount of KRW 60 million to the Defendant, and the content-certified mail sent to the Plaintiff B on October 1, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry in Gap evidence 1 through 4 (including each number for a case with a serial number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, the claim for the refund of the deposited money amounting to KRW 60 million against the Defendant of the network C was lawfully transferred to the Plaintiff, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at each ratio of 20% as stipulated in the Civil Act from December 24, 2013 to December 17, 2015, the date following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case sought by the Plaintiff, which is the day following the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case to the Plaintiff, which is deemed reasonable for the Defendant to resist the existence or scope of the obligation.

As long as the plaintiff's request is dismissed in the first instance, it is reasonable to dispute over defense until the judgment of the court is rendered.