1. The defendant's KRW 86,529,110 for the plaintiff and 5% per annum from November 18, 2020 to February 16, 2021 for the plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 10, 2020, D drafted a testamentary work process document to the effect that a notary public takes up a testamentary gift, including the real estate, deposit claims, and automobiles owned by himself/herself, to the Plaintiff, his/her father, who is his/her father (hereinafter “instant testament process document”) by means of a notary public’s E-office deed, No. 1020. 102.

B. After that, D died on May 9, 2020, and as the inheritor of the deceased D (hereinafter “the deceased”) the Plaintiff and F, a child.

(c)

The Deceased has a deposit claim equivalent to KRW 86,529,110 (hereinafter “the deposit claim of this case”) against the Defendant.

(d)

On the other hand, around October 2020, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to pay the instant deposit claim on the ground that he was subject to a universal legacy from the Deceased, but was rejected by the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including each number for which there are several numbers), Gap evidence No. 11, and Gap evidence No. 13, the purport of the whole of the arguments and changes

2. Determination:

A. According to the facts of the judgment on the cause of the claim, the plaintiff received a universal legacy of the deceased's whole property including the deposit claim of this case in accordance with the will of this case according to the process deed of this case.

It is reasonable to view it.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff, who is a comprehensive receipt of the deposit claim of this case, KRW 86,529,110, which is the principal of the deposit claim of this case, and damages for delay.

B. The defendant's assertion and its decision 1) The defendant's summary of the defendant's assertion bear the duty of care as a financial institution. It is difficult to judge whether the will of this case is valid or not, and there may be legal disputes as to the validity of the will of this case between the plaintiff and the next heir F. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim cannot be complied with at present.

2) In full view of the following circumstances, we examine the judgment of the court below, and comprehensively consider Gap evidence Nos. 5 through 10 and the purport of the whole theory of changes: