[2] Whether the method of questioning the testator in writing stating the intent of the will prepared by the testator according to the will of the testator, confirming the will of the testator, and reading the written document, and whether the method of reading the written document satisfies the requirements under Article 1068 of the Civil Code

[3] The case holding that a testament by the above notarial deed satisfies all the requirements stipulated in Article 1068 of the Civil Code, in case where an attorney-at-law was signed after confirming his intention of testamentary gift by asking questions to the testator who is clear of consciousness and who does not interfere with the language interpretation, and then reading the contents of the deed

[2] In a “notarial will” under Article 1068 of the Civil Code, the term “the demand for a will” refers to the delivery of the contents of the will by oral statement to the other party. Thus, it should be strictly interpreted by strictly limiting it. However, in a case where a notary prepares the will according to the testator’s intent and asks the testator according to the document, and then confirms the testator’s intention, then read the written document, and the testator is capable of accurately understanding the intent of the will, and in a case where the testator is deemed to have the ability to recognize the will as the true will of the testator, and the will itself can be deemed to have been based on the contents and circumstances of the will, it must be deemed that the testator satisfies the above requirement.

[3] The case holding that, according to the notarial deed prepared in advance by an attorney-at-law, the will by the said notarial deed satisfies all the requirements under Article 1068 of the Civil Code, in case where it is confirmed that the testator is aware of his consciousness and who does not interfere with language communication, and then confirmed his intention of legacy, and then read the contents of the deed, and then received the signature

Articles 1065 through 1070 of the Civil Act stipulate strictly the method of a will to clarify the will of the testator and prevent 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 Decision 2005Da57899, Mar. 9, 2006). “Will by notarial document” under Article 1068 of the Civil Act refers to a testator before two witnesses participate, and the testator and the witness agree to or affix their names and seals to the testator, respectively, after recognizing the accuracy of the will. In this context, “the demand for the purport of the will” refers to the delivery of the will to the other party, so strictly limit it to the testator’s intent, and if the testator prepares the will according to the intention of the testator and asks questions to the testator according to his/her genuine will and confirmed his/her genuine intent by considering the contents and genuine intent of the testator’s will.

In full view of the evidence in its holding, the court below held that, rather than by the acceptance of the deceased non-party 1 (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"), the preparation of the notarial deed is not by the number of notarial deeds, the plaintiff prepared two witnesses' offices as well as documents, etc. necessary for notarial acts, and then the notarial attorney visited the deceased's home to ask questions to the deceased according to the above document and signed and sealed on the notarial deed by the deceased. The deceased was 69 years old as of September 21, 1934, who was 69 years old and did not interfere with language language delivery. Even if the notarial deed was signed by the deceased, the deceased did not appear to have been signed by the notarial deed to have been signed by the deceased, and the notarial deed was signed by the deceased, and the notarial deed was signed by the deceased to have been signed by the notarial deed, and it was confirmed that the notarial deed was valid after the notarial deed was signed by the deceased and the notarial deed's own name and area of the deceased's.

In light of the above legal principles, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the will method by notarial deed or in violation of the rules of evidence

The Supreme Court precedents cited in the grounds of appeal are inappropriate to be invoked on the grounds of different issues in this case.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)