1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Securities transaction deposits (FNA) in the new financial investment account (DREA) with H on December 3, 2013, the due date of the opening of the account number No. 1 G ordinary deposit No. 1 G on August 26, 2013, the due date of the opening of the account number of the goods, which was the date of December 26, 2015, and the first Sdrid (DREAM) term deposit with DREM as of May 6, 2015 (DREAM) opened on May 26, 2015, which was changed from May 26, 2015 to the ordinary deposit claim from BNP private individuals (DREM No. 1) No. 1 on May 26, 2015, which was changed from May 31, 2013 to the ordinary deposit claim from December 31, 2015 to December 19, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the ordinary deposit claim).

A. The network D (the network D was opened in order of E, F, and D; hereinafter “the network”) opened, among the Defendant, the account in the name of the deceased as indicated below, each of the following:

(hereinafter collectively referred to as the “instant deposit”). (b)

On May 2, 2015, the deceased died on May 2, 2015, and his heir as the deceased, there are plaintiffs B (M's spouse), plaintiffs C (M's children), M's substitute successions, P, Q, R, and N.

(hereinafter referred to as "the co-inheritors of this case"). 【No dispute exists, the entries in Gap evidence 1 through 5 (including numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion

A. 1) The Plaintiffs’ assertion 1) The instant deposit claim in the name of the deceased was automatically divided into and reverted to the instant co-inheritors according to the statutory share of inheritance upon the death on May 2, 2015 of the deceased. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiffs the amount stated in the claim. 2) Of the co-inheritors of the instant case, theO asserts the contributory portion regarding inherited property, but this is either unilateral and unfair without legal basis, and thus, there is no possibility that the share of inheritance of the instant co-inheritors may be adjusted accordingly

Therefore, the Defendant’s deposit for repayment to the co-inheritors of this case, which was made during the instant lawsuit, does not constitute a case where the obligee cannot be known without fault under the latter part of Article 487 of the Civil Act.

B. Defendant’s assertion