1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiffs were children between the deceased D (hereinafter “the deceased”) and the deceased E (the death of 2003), and the Defendant liveded with the deceased from around 2005 to the time of the death of the deceased in 2015.

(B) From March 18, 2011 to November 15, 2013, the legal marital relationship was a legal relationship and the remainder was a de facto marital relationship).

On March 31, 2014, the Deceased sold to F the purchase price of KRW 1,159 square meters (which is then divided into G and H) and KRW 48 square meters before I, in total, KRW 1,880,000,000, and completed the registration of ownership transfer to F on April 22, 2014.

(hereinafter “instant sales contract”). C.

The Deceased died on October 2, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6, 7, and 8 (including all types of numbers), witness J's testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. At the time of entering into the instant sales contract by the Plaintiffs, the Deceased was almost real name, and was suffering from diseases, such as high blood pressure and chronic renal failure, and thus, the Defendant concluded the instant sales contract with the delegation of the Deceased and received the sales price.

As the Defendant uses approximately KRW 1.1 billion in paying out of the purchase price of KRW 1.80 million which he received, and keeps the remainder in custody of the deceased for the deceased, the Defendant is obligated to pay out part of the purchase price of KRW 1.50 million each to the Plaintiffs.

B. The evidence presented by the plaintiffs alone is insufficient to recognize that the deceased had a right to claim a return on the above money by having the deceased keep the money received by the deceased as the purchase price, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

(In light of the testimony of J, a witness on the part of the plaintiff, the deceased appears to have donated the amount equivalent to the purchase price to the defendant). Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

3. Therefore, all of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed. It is so ordered.