1. The judgment of the first instance court, including the modification of the claim in this court, shall be modified as follows:

The defendant is the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. Plaintiff A is the legal spouse of the deceased D (hereinafter “the deceased”), and Plaintiff B is the deceased’s children.

The Deceased died on February 28, 2015.

B. From September 14, 2014 to February 16, 2015, the Deceased’s death, the sum of KRW 697,514,000 (hereinafter “instant deposit”) was transferred from the Defendant’s E bank account to the Defendant’s account. On September 22, 2014 and September 23, 2014, the sum of KRW 17,500,000 was transferred from the Defendant’s account to the Deceased’s above account.

【Ground of recognition】 Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1, 3 through 6 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

A. The Defendant, regardless of the deceased’s intent, arbitrarily transferred the deposited amount of KRW 17,50,000 to his own account, which is owned by the deceased, regardless of the difference in the health of the deceased, and then returned the deposited amount of KRW 17,50,00 to the deceased’s account, thereby obtaining unjust enrichment of KRW 680,014,00 (=697,514,000 - 17,50,000) without any legal cause.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to return 408,000 won (i.e., 680,014,000 won x statutory inheritance x 3/5), 272,005,600 won (=680,014,000 won x statutory inheritance x 2/5) to the plaintiff, who is the inheritor of the deceased, and its delay damages.

B. Since the donation of KRW 680,014,00 to the Defendant of the ancillary claimant, the Defendant is obligated to return the shortage in the legal reserve of inheritance to the Plaintiff A or the Plaintiffs, on a selective basis, since the legal reserve of inheritance of the Plaintiff A or the Plaintiffs was infringed.

3. Determination

A. 1) In a lawsuit seeking restitution of unjust enrichment, the burden of proof as to the fact that the general establishment requirement of unjust enrichment occurred without any legal cause is borne by the claimant for restitution (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da72786, May 29, 2008). 2) In addition to the above facts, Gap’s evidence Nos. 3, 5, 6, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 2, 3, 4, 11, 15, 18, 40, and 41 evidence are written.