1. The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The deceased D (hereinafter “the deceased”) died on December 26, 201, and Defendant B and his children, the wife, jointly inherited the deceased’s property.

B. E and F were adjudicated on May 8, 2012 on the acceptance of the declaration of renunciation of inheritance by Changwon District Court 2012Ra289.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, W. Each entry of Evidence Nos. 4 and 5

2. The plaintiff asserted on March 25, 2009: (a) on an agreement between the deceased and the Namyang-si, the deceased agreed to be entrusted with all management authority, such as purchase and sale of the G building Nos. 401, 402, 403, 406, 407, 408, 501, 502, 506, 507, 510, 601, 602, 603, 609, 610, 610, 701, 702, 703, 704, 707, 708, and 708 (hereinafter referred to as the "instant agreement"); (b) on March 25, 2009, KRW 300,000,000 as a security deposit, and paid KRW 500,000,000,09.

However, as the Plaintiff rescinded the instant agreement, the Defendants, co-inheritors of the deceased, are obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount stated in each claim out of KRW 100 million.

3. The Defendants asserted that “A” evidence Nos. 2 (Delegation) and “A” evidence Nos. 3 (each receipt) had not been signed or sealed by the deceased. According to the evidence Nos. 1, the Defendants asserted that “A” evidence Nos. 2 (Delegation Book) and “A” did not affix their names or seals, and stated “B” evidence No. 2 (Delegation Book) that the other resident registration numbers (I) other than the deceased’s resident registration numbers (H) may be received. Of the evidence Nos. 3-1 through 3 (each receipt), there is a fact that “A” other than the deceased’s signature or seal affixed to the deceased’s signature or seal.

In light of these circumstances, Gap evidence Nos. 2 (a delegation letter) and Gap evidence Nos. 3-1 through 3 (each receipt) cannot be admitted as evidence and they cannot be admitted as evidence.

In addition, the witness K's testimony that seems consistent with the plaintiff's assertion is difficult to believe, and the remaining evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize the plaintiff's assertion, so the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion.