The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. The Plaintiff and E’s mother-friendly F died on June 2, 2018. At that time, the Defendant had a deposit claim exceeding KRW 265 million (hereinafter “instant deposit claim”).

On October 8, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an application for conciliation against E to the effect that F’s inherited property (the instant deposit claim and real property) is divided at the ratio of 1/2 of the statutory inheritance, respectively (U.S. family court 2019p. 51935), but the lawsuit for division of inherited property (U.S. family court 2020p. 516) is pending because conciliation is not constituted.

On March 13, 2020, the Defendant deposited KRW 267,454,921, which is the F deposit claim amount of F deposit money, with the Plaintiff and E pursuant to Article 487 of the Civil Act, on the ground that “The Defendant cannot know the scope of respective inheritance shares among F co-inheritors because there is a dispute over the share of inheritance through the inheritance division lawsuit among them.”

(U) Suwon District Court No. 2877, 2020, hereinafter “Deposit for Payment in this case”). 【No dispute exists concerning the grounds for recognition, evidence No. 1 through 8, evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Where an ancestor dies, the heir shall succeed to all the comprehensive rights and duties concerning the property of the inheritee from the time of the commencement of the inheritance.

(Article 105 of the Civil Act). In a case where a claim, as in a monetary claim, is jointly inherited, the content of performance is divided and reverted to co-inheritors according to the statutory share of inheritance, as a matter of course, at the time of commencing the inheritance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Do5338, Jun. 30, 2006; 2014Switzerland122, May 4, 2016). According to the above facts of recognition, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 133,70,000 to the Plaintiff, who is a co-inheritors of F, within the extent of the amount equivalent to 1/2 of the statutory share of inheritance among the said deposits.

3. The defendant's defense of this case is not known whether the request for return of deposit by one of the F co-inheritors was legitimate.