2. C Stock Company:

1. Although it is not bound by a judgment on other civil cases, etc. in a civil trial, the facts already established in the relevant civil case cannot be rejected without a reasonable reasoning (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Da92312, 92329, Sept. 24, 2009; 201Da42430, Feb. 27, 2014).

2. In full view of the adopted evidence, the lower court determined that the instant will was null and void, following: (a) H and I, as an employee of the deceased, was not qualified as a witness of the instant will by an authentic document; (b) the deceased did not have the ability to make a will at the time of the instant will; and (c) the deceased did not have the intent of the will

3. However, it is difficult to accept the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, on August 21, 2014, the deceased’s wife E and the Southern F (hereinafter “E, etc.”) asserted the invalidity of the instant will, and filed a lawsuit against the Defendants seeking the confirmation of shareholders’ rights and the implementation of transfer procedures, etc. under the Seoul Central District Court 2014Gahap560651. It lost the Defendants. The aforementioned judgment (hereinafter “previous judgment”) became final and conclusive on December 28, 2016 due to the dismissal of both appeals and appeals of E, etc., and the aforementioned judgment (hereinafter “previous judgment”) became final and conclusive. The previous judgment rejected the allegation of E, etc., while the deceased was qualified as witness in relation to the instant will, the deceased was capable of making the will at the time of his will, and was capable of seeking the deceased’s will to have been made by the deceased, and then, it can be known that the instant will was valid.

Unless there exist special circumstances, the facts acknowledged in the previous judgment as above are significant evidence in this case, and it cannot be rejected without any reasonable reasons. However, even after examining the evidence adopted by the court below in light of records, the circumstances where the defendant B, not the deceased, ordered H and I to select He as a witness of the will of this case, and there is no basis for the attorney in charge of notarial services to confirm the relationship between the deceased and H, I, or the eligibility for witness, and the deceased demanded H and I to participate in the Notarial will of this case. The deceased demanded that the Notarial will of this case be present. There is no explicit statement that the deceased purchased the Notarial 520 illness in one year from 2007, and H purchased the Notarial 520 illness in one year from the date of the deceased, and stated that the deceased was not able to receive the purport of his will, which was not the deceased's testament, and that there was no evidence that there was no reason to view the deceased's previous will as a witness in this case's judgment.

Nevertheless, the court below acknowledged the facts established in the previous judgment without any reasonable reasoning only with the adopted evidence. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the probative value of the facts established in the final and conclusive civil case, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

4. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the part of the judgment below against the Defendants is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Young-young