1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The deceased F (hereinafter “the deceased”) married with G on May 15, 1949, resulting in Nonparty H (the death of April 28, 1986). The Plaintiff is a child born between H and Nonparty I.

B. G was missing at the time of the 625 incident, and thereafter, the deceased remarried and resulted in Defendant B, C, and D. However, the above Defendants were reported to the birth of a child of another person who is not the deceased on the ground that they did not report the marriage.

C. From the mid-190s, the Deceased lived with Defendant D, from around June 12, 2015, the Deceased was hospitalized at the J Hospital operated by Defendant E due to tuberculosis pulmonary waste, dementia, high blood pressure, etc., and died on July 11, 2015. Around July 28, 2015, Defendant E, a “the head of the place of death,” who was the head of the management of the place of death, was the reporting person, and reported the death of the Deceased.

Defendant B, C, and D did not notify the Plaintiff and I (hereinafter “Plaintiff, etc.”) of the death of the deceased, and completed the funeral procedures of the deceased, and the Plaintiff, etc. became aware of the death of the deceased through his wife around October 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Although Defendant B, C, and D notified the Plaintiff, etc. of the death of the deceased and did not have been involved in the funeral procedure, Defendant E conspired with the said Defendants and did not report the death of the deceased unlawfully.

Due to these illegal acts by the defendants, the plaintiff deprived of the deceased's opportunity to participate in funeral procedures and suffered mental shock, and thus, the plaintiff sought payment of KRW 100 million as consolation money to the defendants.

The Plaintiff asserts that there was a passive loss that caused the Plaintiff to lose the opportunity to receive or distribute the donation through the instant complaint, and that it would reveal the amount of the donation to be allocated according to the details of the payment of the donation.