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. In addition to the evidence submitted in the appellate court citing the judgment of the court of first instance, the reason for the judgment of the court of first instance is reasonable even if examining the evidence.

The reasoning for the court’s explanation on the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following supplementary parts and the parts to be determined additionally, and thus, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The decision of the first instance court on the fourth part of the decision of the first instance court on the ground of recognition: “The testimony of a witness L and the results of the inquiry of the fact to the Korea Water Resources Corporation of this court”: “The testimony of a witness L of the first instance court, the results of the party principal inquiry to the plaintiff of the first instance court on the plaintiff, part of the results of the party principal inquiry to the defendant C, and the results of the fact inquiry to the Korea Water Resources Corporation of the first instance court on the defendant C”.

3. In addition to the decision of the first instance court, the fifth part of the decision does not exceed the obligation to pay the agreed amount, and add the allegations of the Defendants and the decision thereof, as follows:

In this regard, the defendants' arguments are examined as follows.

(1) There was an agreement between Defendant C and the Plaintiff to provide money equivalent to the Plaintiff’s share of inheritance.

Even if Defendant B and D conferred the power of representation on the above agreement to Defendant C, or Defendant C did not make the above agreement as the representative of the Defendants, such agreement has no effect on Defendant B and D.

If the Defendants disposed of the deceased’s inherited property registered in the name of the Defendants against the Plaintiff several times from 2005 to 2014, the fact that the Defendants agreed to pay money equivalent to the Plaintiff’s statutory share of inheritance out of the proceeds from the disposal of the property is as seen earlier. Therefore, the above assertion by Defendant B and D is without merit.

(2) Even if Defendant C agreed to give money equivalent to the Plaintiff’s share of inheritance, Defendant C agreed to give money to the Plaintiff.

Even if so, the above arrangement is written.