1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff falling under the following order of payment shall be revoked.

In accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, the part concerning "1. Basic Facts" and "2. Determination on the cause of the claim" among the grounds of the judgment of the first instance which partially accepted the judgment of the first instance.

The Defendants’ assertion as to the defense of the agreement on division of inherited property is unreasonable, on the premise that there was an agreement on division of inherited property (hereinafter “division agreement”) with the content that the Plaintiff was divided by the Defendants after deducting the Plaintiff. As such, the Plaintiff’s claim seeking payment of the amount equivalent to the statutory share of inheritance among the insurance money and the agreed amount is unreasonable.

Judgment

If Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 4 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 10 and 11, and testimony by witness G of the court of first instance shows the purport of the whole pleadings, the plaintiff and the defendants affix all of their respective seal impressions on the claim form for the payment of insurance proceeds to the three insurance companies earlier on March 20, 2014, and on the same day, the deposit account number in the name of the plaintiff in the claim form for the payment of insurance proceeds to Han Pot Life Insurance on the same day; on the 24th day of the same month, the deposit account number in the name of the defendant C in the claim form for the payment of insurance proceeds to Han Pak Damage Insurance proceeds;

4. On March 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendants received one insurance money for each insurance contract by entering and submitting to the insurer the deposit account number in Defendant B’s name in the claim for the payment of the insurance money for interesting fire insurance. The Plaintiff and the Defendants together received one insurance money for each insurance contract. The Plaintiff and the Defendants agreed to negotiate the amount of direct agreement with G in March 2014, and they were Defendant B, and the Plaintiff did not participate in the negotiations. The Plaintiff’s seal impression on the 20th day of the same month was affixed to the agreement (Evidence A 1) by Defendant B, and the Plaintiff’s seal impression in their possession on the 21st day of the same month after concluding the agreement.

However, the Plaintiff and the Defendants.