1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. The grounds for a judgment of the first instance shall be quoted for this judgment pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act citing the judgment of the first instance;

except that the decision of this Court shall be added as follows:

2. Additional determination

A. It is reasonable to view that E committed suicide in light of the following: (a) the statement of Gap6-1, 2, and 7; (b) the video of Gap16; and (c) the testimony and overall purport of the testimony and pleading of the witness of the first instance trial; (d) the time of death of Eul; (e) the day before and after the death; (e) the various circumstances before and after the death; and (e) the structure of Vietnam, which appears to be a place for fall; and (e) the evidence submitted by

B. As to the scope of return of unjust enrichment by Defendant B and C, the above Defendants, even if they were to have the duty of return of unjust enrichment to the above Defendants, asserts that the scope of return of the above Defendants, who are minors, should be limited by taking into account the large principles of the Civil Code and the purport of the proviso of Article 141 of the

However, the proviso of Article 141 of the Civil Act that limits liability of an incompetent person is a provision that applies or applies mutatis mutandis to a case where a juristic act is cancelled or invalidated on account of a defect in mental capacity, and it cannot be applied to a claim for return of unjust enrichment against the said Defendants.

In addition, in a case where a person gains profits from another person's property or labor without any legal ground and thereby causes damage to another person, if the acquired money is a pecuniary gain, the said money is presumed to exist regardless of whether the person who acquired it consumed it. Thus, the person who asserts that the above profit does not exist bears the burden of proof (see Supreme Court Decisions 96Da32881, Dec. 10, 1996; 2008Da58367, Jan. 15, 2009). Thus, even if appropriated for other expenses, the benefit is exempted from the consumption of other property, so the benefit is within the scope of this.