1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff is a third son (1966) among the non-party deceased C and D's three male and female (196), and the defendant is a man of the male and female (1956).

C died on February 26, 2008 and D on February 25, 2013, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1, 2, 25, and 26 evidence (including each number, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment as to the primary cause of claim

A. On April 14, 2008, the defendant, among inherited property owned by C from around April 14, 2008, refused to pay the plaintiff's share of inherited property among the inherited property owned by C, by managing the deposit claim equivalent to KRW 2.91 billion stated in the attached Table. This constitutes an infringement of inheritance right, and the defendant is obliged to pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 529,090,90,909, which corresponds to KRW 2.11, which is the plaintiff's share of inherited property among the above 2.910,000 won of inheritance right

B. The Defendant’s assertion 1) The summary of the Defendant’s assertion was filed three years after the date on which the Plaintiff became aware of the infringement of the right to inheritance, and thus, the limitation period under Article 999(2) of the Civil Act is excessive. 2) The term “date on which the Plaintiff becomes aware of the infringement of the right to inheritance” under Article 999(2) of the Civil Act, which is the starting point of the limitation period for the right to claim recovery of inheritance, refers to the time when he knows that the Plaintiff was the true heir, and he knows the fact that he was excluded from the inheritance. Thus, the presumption or question of infringement of the right to inheritance is not sufficient, but at any time, whether the Plaintiff was aware of the infringement of the right to inheritance should be reasonably acknowledged by taking into account various objective circumstances in individual cases and taking into account

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da36223 Decided October 25, 2007). The aforementioned corresponding evidence, Gap evidence, Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5, 14 through 16, 29, 34, Eul evidence No. 8, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 1, and the defendant's father.