1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. A is the mother of the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and D.

B. On April 9, 2015, A died on April 5, 2016 when having repeatedly been discharged from the hospital after being discharged to the emergency department of Samsung Seoul Hospital due to the symptoms of chest and the difficulty of repulmonation.

C. From April 10, 2015 to April 28, 2015, the Defendant withdrawn a total of KRW 265,000,000 from the bank account of A using A’s painting, etc.

On April 12, 2015, the Defendant purchased the Songpa-gu Seoul E building A No. 303, 255,000,000 won and paid the purchase price to the said money withdrawn from A’s account.

The plaintiff taken over the lawsuit of this case as the inheritor A.

Plaintiff

As the defendant and D, who are other co-inheritors, did not take over the litigation procedures, this court ordered the continuation ex officio pursuant to Article 244 of the Civil Procedure Act, and received the lawsuit against the defendant and D, but the lawsuit between the defendant and D was withdrawn by both of them.

[However, the part where the defendant is a party to a lawsuit shall be deemed to have been terminated due to confusion as to the status of the party (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da11217, Jun. 25, 2009). [Judgment 2007Da11217, Jun. 25, 2009] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 15, Eul evidence Nos. 2,

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Defendant, without permission, withdrawn KRW 265,00,000 from the A’s account by using A’s painting, etc., on a crepan in which the Plaintiff received hospitalized treatment.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the damages amounting to KRW 88,33,333 (=265,00,000 x 1/3, and less than KRW 1/3) as damages arising from the above tort.

B. The Defendant did not withdraw the above money from the Plaintiff under the direction of A, which had concerns over taking the property from the Plaintiff, and did not withdraw the real property without permission. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion is unreasonable.

3. The defendant's deposit is permitted to A with the sole statement of evidence Nos. 16 to 19.