1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Under the underlying facts, the following facts do not conflict between the parties, or may be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2.

Defendant D is the friendship between the Plaintiffs and Defendant C.

B. On July 18, 2016, the Plaintiffs and Defendant C’s relatives while solely owning the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

The instant real estate was registered under Defendant D’s sole name on November 16, 2016 due to a consultation and division, and Defendant D sold the instant real estate in KRW 1.57 billion to F on July 17, 2017.

2. On the premise that the heir of the deceased E including the defendant D sells the real estate of this case, the plaintiffs entered into an agreement with the defendant D to divide the sale price of the real estate of this case according to the inherited portion, but to register inheritance under the name of the defendant D's sole name for the convenience of sale (hereinafter "the agreement on distribution of this case"), and the defendant D agreed to keep the sale price to the defendant C and distribute it to the heir.

However, as long as the real estate of this case was sold, Defendant C, who keeps the sales price, is liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 10 million to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff B according to the share of inheritance after deducting inheritance tax, etc. from the Plaintiffs who subrogated to the right to claim the return of the deposit in custody against Defendant C, based on the distribution agreement or the right to claim the return of the deposit in custody against Defendant C.

The health awareness that there was an agreement on the instant distribution related to the sale of the instant real estate among the inheritors, and the statement of No. 7, which seems consistent with the Plaintiffs’ assertion, is based on the following circumstances, i.e., the original and the Defendant, including the statement of No. 3, 4, and 12, the witness G testimony and the overall purport of the oral argument as to Defendant D’s personal examination.