The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Plaintiff

On April 19, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the maturity of ten years,35,000,000 of the deceased’s name (hereinafter “the instant term deposit”) as the children of the deceased C (hereinafter “the deceased”). The deceased is merely a contractor under the name of the instant term deposit and is the actual right holder of the instant term deposit.

On October 31, 2018 before the death of the deceased, the Defendant cancelled the instant term deposit using the deceased’s impossibility of recognition and dementia condition, and transferred the entire amount of KRW 35,117,801 to the account in the name of the Defendant.

As a result, the Defendant acquired the instant term deposit owned by the Plaintiff without any legal ground, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the said KRW 35,117,801, which was unjustly gained by the Plaintiff, and the delay damages therefor.

2. However, the evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the actual holder of the term deposit in this case is the Plaintiff, not the Deceased, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. As the Plaintiff asserted, the Plaintiff paid the deceased money necessary for the purchase of the term deposit in this case.

In light of the above, the right to the time deposit in this case may not be deemed to belong to the Plaintiff other than the Deceased.

In addition, the Plaintiff’s assertion was made by the Defendant’s unjust enrichment, which is the property of the Deceased, and the Plaintiff, as the legal inheritor of the Deceased, seeks the return of unjust enrichment against the Defendant.

Even if the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone, the deceased cancelled the instant term deposit against his own will.

It is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant used the deceased’s money against the deceased’s will in the position of keeping the deceased’s money, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion has no reason to see as many features.

3. The plaintiff's conclusion is that of this case.