1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance court's judgment, except in cases where part of the judgment of the first instance is rewritten or added as follows 2. Thus, it is citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. In addition to the statements in or addition to the original decision of the first instance court, the references to the “statements in or addition to the statements in or addition to the third below of the first instance judgment,” followed:

The following shall be added between the 8th and the 12th one of the 11st decisions of the first instance court:

3. The plaintiff asserts that the deposit claim in each deposit account Nos. 4 through 15 of the instant deposit table is presumed to be co-owned because it is unclear who belongs to the deceased and F, and even if not, the said deposit claim is a property created by the deceased and F with their joint efforts while married. Therefore, at least, the deceased has ownership of 1/2 of the said deposit claim.

First, since each of the above deposit claims is owned by F, it cannot be said that each of the above deposit claims belongs to anyone of the married couple.

In addition, according to the above evidence, it is recognized that the deceased and F maintained their marital life from February 12, 1945 to March 27, 2010 until the deceased died. However, as long as the deceased did not acquire the ownership of a certain portion of the above deposit claim against F through a property division claim against F before the deceased’s death, it is insufficient to recognize that 1/2 of the above deposit claim owned by F constituted inherited property as the ownership of the deceased as a matter of course, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for monetary payment against the defendants is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and it is against the defendants.