1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The grounds for appeal by the plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and decision of the court of first instance are justifiable even if the evidence presented by the plaintiff was presented to the court of first instance.

Therefore, the reasoning for the court’s explanation on the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except where the Plaintiff added, as the ground for appeal, the judgment on the instant claim, particularly as the ground for appeal, as set forth in paragraph (2). As such, it cited it as it is in accordance with

2. Additional determination as to the Plaintiff’s assertion in this Court

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The net demanded that Defendant C pay the outstanding amount of KRW 1.5 billion, which is his/her father, to Defendant C. From August 26, 2015 to December 22, 2015, prior to the filing of the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendants to return the loan by sending several telephone calls or text messages to the Defendants, but the Defendants did not respond thereto. The Defendants responded that the net A was donated KRW 1.5 billion from the deceased on January 19, 2016 without permission, and that the net A was donated KRW 1.5 billion from the deceased on 1.5 billion to the Defendant C. In light of the fact that the Defendants’ side borrowed KRW 50 billion from the deceased on 19th, 2016, KRW 2.5 billion from the deceased on 200 billion, and that the gift tax was loaned KRW 1.5 billion from the deceased on 200 billion to the Defendant’s account without permission.