[2] Whether the method by which the testator question the testator according to the document in which the intent of the will was written in advance by a third party and the testator affirms the action or brief answer by the testator constitutes "the demand of the will" under Article 1070 of the Civil Code

[3] The case holding that a testator, who cannot express his will properly at the time of his will, cannot be deemed as demanding the purport of his will under Article 1070 of the Civil Code merely because the testator, who is unable to express his will properly at the time of his will, led to an attorney's question seeking confirmation of his will, or said testator, referred to as "as", "as

[2] Article 1070 of the Civil Code provides that the testator may demand the intent of the will with the participation of two or more witnesses and the person who received the demand for the will shall write down and read it to approve its accuracy, and then the testator and the witness shall then sign or affix their seals to each other. The phrase "perscing the intent of the will" refers to delivering to the other party the contents of the will by oral statement. Thus, the method of affirming the testator by a document in which the intent of the will was written in advance by a third person and asking questions to the testator according to the document in which the intent of the will was stated, and recognizing the testator as acting or a brief answer by the testator cannot be deemed as the acceptance of the will as stipulated in Article 1070 of the Civil Code, unless there are special circumstances such as where it is clearly recognized that the document was prepared by the testator at the time of the will.

[3] The case holding that a testator, who cannot express his will properly at the time of his will, cannot be deemed as seeking the purport of his will under Article 1070 of the Civil Code merely because the testator, who is unable to express his will properly at the time of his will, led to an attorney's question seeking confirmation of his will, or said testator, referred to as "drawing" or "

According to the evidence of the court below, the deceased non-party 1 expressed his/her will to his/her family on January 3, 1998, when he/she was suffering from chronic thirropical tymosis or cardiopulmonary cirrosis, and had three attorney-at-law attend the will. Although the mental condition of the deceased at the time was relatively good, it was difficult to expect that he/she will be able to make oral or sound recording of the entire purport of his/her will in addition to a simple external mady or hands-on behavior due to the aggravation of disease, it was difficult to expect that he/she would make a will by the oral document, and one of the above admitted attorneys-at-law would be able to confirm the deceased's will before and after confirming the deceased's will. The court below determined that the non-party 2, who was the witness of this case, made an interview with the deceased's signature after verifying the purport of his/her will, and that the deceased's signature was not made in the form of the deceased's testimony.

2. The judgment of this Court

However, we cannot accept the above decision of the court below for the following reasons.

Articles 1065 through 1070 of the Civil Act stipulate strictly the method of a will with the intention of clarifying the truth of the testator and preventing legal disputes and confusion arising therefrom. Thus, a will contrary to the statutory requirements and methods cannot be null and void even if it conforms to the authentic will of the testator (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Da17800, Sept. 3, 1999; 2004Da35533, Nov. 11, 2004). "Will by an oral document" under Article 1070 of the Civil Act refers to a testator's participation in two or more witnesses, and the testator and the person who received the will approved it by writing and signed or sealed it, and thus, it cannot be seen that the testator's will constitutes a part of the testator's ability to answer to the other party, and it can not be seen that the testator's will was a brief description of the testator's ability to answer to the other party at the time of the preparation of the will.

However, according to the records, at the time of the will of this case, the deceased was unable to take meals as well as other persons were unable to sit without being frightened due to the aggravation of chronic sulphal sulphal and sulphal illness, etc. around the time of the will of this case. Non-party 4, the deceased, sulting, or sulting, the electric lines contracted at sulphe, was sult. The deceased was able to sule, “hum,” and “hum,” and it was impossible to express sult sule his will. Non-party 5’s opinion on the day of the will of this case by putting 3 attorneys at the sick’s room and write suld their property contents in advance. In light of the legal principles as seen above, the deceased’s 6th of the deceased’s will, one of the attorneys at the time of his will, was excluding the deceased’s 5th of the inheritance and the deceased’s 6th of the deceased’s body.

Nevertheless, the court below determined that the deceased can be seen as having sought the meaning of his will on the grounds as stated in its reasoning. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on will by means of an instrument of acceptance, and it is clear that such illegality affected the judgment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court 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 Kim Ji-hyung (Presiding Justice)