1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On August 19, 2029, an official agricultural cooperative deposited KRW 85,598,723 on the ground that the account holder D died and the heir cannot be confirmed.

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation against the plaintiff that he/she has the right to withdraw the deposit against the above union (the plaintiff is the sole heir because he/she is the same as a double-entry of D, and thus the plaintiff seeks confirmation that the right to claim the payment of deposit is the plaintiff), and lost in the first instance court, but the plaintiff won the lawsuit in the appellate court, and on April 24, 2014, the Supreme Court

B. Meanwhile, on July 12, 2012, Defendant B, an attorney-at-law, appointed Defendant C as an attorney and filed a petition for trial on distribution of D’s inherited property.

Defendant B, “D and Defendant B were living together in a mother and child relationship, and D died. Whether an inheritor exists or not, and thus, D’s property administrator’s notice was expired by publicly announcing an heir’s search and seizure. Defendant B is a specially related person.” As such, Defendant B filed a petition for adjudication by asserting the circumstance that “The existence of an inheritor is unclear.”

In addition, upon receiving a decision on the distribution of inherited property under Article 1057-2 of the Civil Code from the court, the deposit was paid on March 11, 2013.

[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Eul's evidence 3-1, 2, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Although there is no heir of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the share of the inherited property cannot be recognized. Defendant B, an attorney-at-law, appointed Defendant C as a legal representative and paid the said deposit upon the judgment on the share of inherited property as a special relative.

Defendant B and C filed a claim for distribution of inherited property with the knowledge that the Plaintiff was an inheritor.

The court under the jurisdiction of the defendant Republic of Korea declared a judgment without complying with the deadline set by the Civil Procedure Act in a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the plaintiff's claim for deposit withdrawal.

In addition, the court has failed to examine even if the plaintiff exists as the heir, and has filed a request for trial on the part of defendant B's inherited property.