1. As to the claim for withdrawal against each of the deposits listed in the separate sheet, 3/7 shares to A and 2.2.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9 (including the number of branch numbers), the original fact that C was the nominal owner of each claim for deposit indicated in the separate sheet, but C died on March 16, 2013, and the heir died on March 16, 2013 is recognized respectively.

According to the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to view that there exists 3/7 shares in the claims for deposits listed in the separate sheet to Plaintiff A and 2/7 shares in the Plaintiff B. [In principle, where the content of payment is jointly inherited, such as the claim for deposit shall be divided and reverted to co-inheritors according to the statutory share of inheritance at the time of commencement of inheritance (see Supreme Court Order 2014SS122, May 4, 2016). Considering the time from the time of death of Plaintiff C to the point of time, the deposit of this case, the amount of the claim, and the fact that there is no contact between the Plaintiffs and D, it is difficult to view that the separate claim constitutes an exceptional case subject to the division of inherited property], as the Defendant is dissatisfied with this issue, there is a benefit of confirmation in order to resolve the dispute.

The plaintiffs' claims shall be accepted for each reason.