1. All of the plaintiffs' claims that have been changed in exchange in the trial are dismissed.

2. The plaintiffs' total costs of litigation.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 17, 2005, D entered into an insurance contract with Samsung Life Insurance Co., Ltd., with the content that the insured and the beneficiary of injury are D, and that the above beneficiary is paid a certain amount of insurance money from the said insurance company when the insured’s injury and death were caused by the beneficiary as inheritor.

B. D entered into a contract on August 23, 2007 with the Defendant on April 19, 2006 on the change of the beneficiary of the above insurance contract from the inheritor on August 23, 2007, one year and four months after reporting the marriage with the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “instant insurance contract”), and the details of the said insurance contract are as shown in the attached Table.

C. On April 11, 2014, D was married with the Defendant, and on May 27, 2014, the pulmonary tuberculosis aggravated, and died. The Plaintiff A (title E) who is a punishment of D and the Plaintiff B, a female son, inherited D’s property according to their respective statutory inheritance ratio of 1/2.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 4 or 7, and the purport of whole pleading

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The plaintiffs asserted the return of unjust enrichment, after D divorced with the defendant, had the intent to change the beneficiary of death under the insurance contract of this case from the defendant to the plaintiffs who are legal successors, but died without changing the state of pulmonary tuberculosis, which was suffering from ordinary pulmonary disease, and thus, therefore, they are not the plaintiffs, but the defendant is entitled to receive the death benefit under the insurance contract of this case. However, the defendant is entitled to receive the death benefit under the insurance contract of this case by receiving KRW 50,00,000 from Samsung Life Insurance, which remains as the beneficiary of death under the insurance contract of this case, without any legal grounds. Accordingly, the defendant suffered damages equivalent to the same amount from the plaintiffs.