1. On June 27, 2018, a claim for damages relating to 1/4 of the deceased’s refund for termination of insurance contracts of the deceased relating to KRW 243,403,360 shall be brought to the death of the deceased A.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 11, 1960, the deceased A (KW, death on June 27, 2018, hereinafter “the deceased”) married with the deceased C (LL, death on March 3, 2015, hereinafter “the deceased”) and placed the Plaintiffs (i South, 2 South, 4 women) and the Defendant (Nam) under the chain.

B. On June 2, 2015, the deceased mother visited Gwangju Company D Co., Ltd.’s business office, along with the Defendant and his female E, and cancelled the life insurance that was subscribed under the name of the deceased mother. The insurance termination amount of KRW 243,403,306 (hereinafter “instant cancellation refund”) was deposited into the F Bank account in the name of the mother.

C. On June 27, 2018, when the deceased mother was under trial, the deceased on June 27, 2018, the Plaintiffs and the Defendant jointly inherited the deceased mother’s inherited property, and the Plaintiffs taken over the instant legal proceedings.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, testimony of party witness E and purport of whole pleadings

2. The instant lawsuit against the Defendant of the network mother of the partial declaration of termination of the lawsuit against the Defendant is seeking damages on the ground of the Defendant’s tort regarding the refund money for cancellation of the lawsuit in this case.

However, according to the records, the deceased on June 27, 2018, when this case was pending in the trial due to the defendant's appeal, and the defendant succeeded to 1/4 of the above damage claim.

Therefore, the part concerning the 1/4 of the above damage claim among the lawsuit in this case was terminated due to confusion as to the status of the party.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da11217, Jun. 25, 2009). 3. Determination on the merits

A. The Plaintiffs asserted 1 of the parties: “The Defendant, as a result of the death of the deceased father, knew the deceased mother that “the deceased mother would cancel the insurance money and pay the tax.” The deceased mother had the Defendant withdraw the refund for cancellation of the instant case by cancelling the life insurance.

Even if a deceptive act by the defendant is not recognized, the defendant of this case for the sake of the conclusion of the network.