1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Presumed factual basis

A. The Plaintiff A married between E and the Defendant’s children on June 2006, and Nonparty A died on June 15, 2012.

Plaintiff

B and C are children of plaintiffs A and the network E.

B. On August 29, 2012, Plaintiff A opened a deposit passbook of free savings deposit in the Plaintiff’s name (hereinafter “instant account”) at the Busan-si Branch of Busan-si, Busan-si, Inc. (hereinafter “instant account”) and at the time, Plaintiff A and the Defendant’s seal affixed the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s seal so that money can be collected from the said passbook.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiffs asserted that the Plaintiff A received KRW 229,220,720,00 in total from the deceased E’s death insurance, etc. as the instant account from our non-life insurance, etc.

However, Plaintiff A withdrawn from the instant account on September 18, 2012, KRW 30,000,000, KRW 30,000,000, and KRW 30,000,00, and also withdrawn KRW 8,748,705, and delivered KRW 87,748,705 to the Defendant.

The above KRW 87,748,705 was donated to the Defendant by the Plaintiff, and such donation is null and void as it constitutes an act significantly unfair due to the Plaintiff’s influence, care, and inexperience, or the Defendant’s deception and donation should be revoked.

Therefore, the defendant should return 87,748,705 won received as above to the plaintiffs according to their respective inheritance shares.

B. According to the judgment, even if the plaintiff A donated the above total amount of KRW 87,748,705 to the defendant, the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs alone was in the state of old-age, rashion, or bad experience at the time when the plaintiff A pays the above money to the defendant.

paid the said money in error or error.

It is insufficient to recognize the fact that the defendant deceivings the plaintiff A, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' above assertion based on this premise is without merit without further review.

In addition, the Civil Code.