1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the following additional parts, and therefore, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2.In addition, in Part V, the following shall be added to the third decision of the first instance:

④ The plaintiffs asserts that the claim of this case constitutes the type of so-called unjust enrichment which causes losses to the legitimate holder of the interest by reverting a certain exclusive interest granted to the right holder to another person without his/her consent objectively. Accordingly, the plaintiffs are sufficient to prove that the amount of money located in the bank account of the network A constitutes inherited property of the plaintiffs, and that the defendant has the right to hold such profits. In other words, the defendant must assert and prove the fact that part of the amount of money transferred from the network A to the defendant's deposit account is donated to the defendant's deposit account. Even though the plaintiffs' claim of this case constitutes a claim for restitution of unjust enrichment which is not a benefit unjust enrichment, the defendant's claim of this case constitutes a claim for restitution of unjust enrichment which is not a benefit gain, but a claim for restitution of the trust claim of the network A by transferring the money deposited in the bank account of the network A to his/her own deposit account without the consent of the network, and as to whether the defendant transferred money in his/her bank account of the network without the consent of the network A, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

3. The plaintiffs' claim is dismissed in its entirety on the ground that it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just and correct.