1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. As such, this is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The second sentence of the first instance court’s judgment “from November 12, 2004,” “from November 26, 2014,” “from November 26, 2004,” “from November 26, 2014,” “from November 29, 2014,” “from November 29, 2004,” “from November 29, 2004,” “from September 21, 2014,” “from September 21, 2014,” “ from November 29, 2004,” “from September 21, 2004,” “ from September 21, 2014,” and “Article 5 subparag. 28, 2014, from October 28, 2014,” “from October 14, 2014,” respectively.

B. The 5th and 16th of the judgment of the first instance court stated that among the above accusation cases, with respect to the suspicion of embezzlement by Defendant B, the police sent the instant securities account to the prosecutor’s office on the ground that “the money in the instant securities account cannot be confirmed as the Plaintiff’s property.” However, on November 27, 2014, the 5th of the judgment of the first instance court rendered a decision that the prosecution authority did not have the right to institute prosecution on the grounds that “the Defendant B and the Plaintiff are not living together with the Plaintiff, as they are not subject to prosecution,” on the grounds that “the Plaintiff’s accusation is an offense subject to prosecution, and there is no complaint by the victim.”

다. 제1심 판결문 제7쪽 제2행의 ‘볼 수 있다.’ 다음에 "㉴ 이 사건 펀드의 배당금 등 그 수익금의 배분과 관련하여 망인과 E, 망인과 원고 사이에 어떠한 약정이 있었음을 인정할 아무런 자료가 없다.

㉵ 원고는 앞서 본 바와 같이 이 사건 소로써 부친인 E으로부터 증여받았다고 주장하는 30,000,000원 중 피고들로부터 회수한 21,331,288원을 공제한 차액을 구하는 것이 아니라, 망인이 사용한 이 사건 펀드의 배당금 21,269,245원 일체를 손해배상금으로 구하고 있다.

(b).