1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

Judgment of the first instance.

1. The reasoning for the court's explanation of this case is that the part concerning the defendant and the designated parties among the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the part concerning the defendant D, the designated parties B, and E, except for the addition of the following Paragraph 2 to the part concerning the plaintiff's claim of the judgment of the court of first instance as to the defendant D, the designated parties B, and E, and thus, it is acceptable

2. The addition;

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant and the designated parties knew all of the existence and content of the instant testamentary deed, and that the J, the executor of the will, could complete the registration of transfer due to testamentary gift on May 12, 201, before six months have passed since the deceased died, based on the re-issuance of the instant testamentary deed on May 12, 201, and thus, the Plaintiff’s act of bringing the instant testamentary deed does not constitute a case where the testamentary deed was concealed under Article 1004 subparag.

However, there is no evidence to prove that all persons, including the Defendant and the designated parties, who were bequeathed by the instant testamentary document, were aware of the entire content of the instant testamentary document, and so long as the Plaintiff refused to return the instant testamentary document to J, the testamentary donee stated in the instant testamentary document, was aware of the existence of the testamentary document.

It is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s act does not constitute a concealment of a will merely because the above J was issued a will document on the ground that it was lost.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the plaintiff's assertion.

B. The Plaintiff asserts that, since M’s act of borrowing money cannot be deemed as a debt due to ordinary household affairs, it cannot be deemed as the Plaintiff’s special profit, and that a loan of KRW 262 million paid by the deceased was repaid by the deceased as a joint and several surety and cannot be deemed as a donation to the Plaintiff, and thus, it does not constitute the Plaintiff’

However, evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 8 of No. 3-1.