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

The following facts are either disputed between the parties, or acknowledged according to Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2-1, 2-2, and Gap evidence 3-1, 2-2.

A. Defendant and Plaintiff 1, 2, 3, 4, and Nonparty 1 are children of Nonparty 2, and Plaintiff 5 and Plaintiff 6 are children of Nonparty 1.

B. When Non-party 2 died on October 31, 2007, the defendant applied for the approval of the will document (which consists of one plastic bag, one copy of the will containing the contents of the will, and a certificate of seal impression; hereinafter the same shall apply) prepared by Non-party 2 on his own writing at this court 2007-Ma1108, the defendant stated that the envelope of the above will document is "Non-party 2" on the front of the envelope of the above testament document, and the written will contains the contents of designating the real estate in the separate list in the name of Non-party 2 (hereinafter the real estate in this case) as Non-party 3, and the following written will contains the signature and seal of Non-party 2 on the date of preparation of the will and the signature and seal of Non-party 2.

C. After that, on October 31, 2007 with respect to the instant real estate, the Seoul Central District Court (Seoul Central District Court Decision 1473 on January 14, 2008) received the ownership transfer registration procedure under the name of the defendant under the receipt of No. 1473 on the ground of legacy.

2. Determination on the plaintiffs' claims

The purpose of Article 1065 through 1070 of the Civil Act is to clarify the truth of the testator and prevent legal disputes and confusion arising therefrom. Thus, a will contrary to the statutory requirements and methods is not null and void even if it conforms to the testator's genuine will (see Supreme Court Decisions 98Da17800, Sept. 3, 199; 2004Da35533, Nov. 11, 2004; 2004Da35533, Nov. 11, 2004). Since the method of will based on the self-written document is the most simple method without any involvement of any third party such as a witness, and thus, its strictness is more required. Accordingly, the Civil Act provides that a will should be signed and sealed by securing its strictness (Article 106(1)6(1)6 of the Civil Act).

However, in the case of the instant testamentary document, which is a certificate of completion, only the month of preparation as seen earlier, but not the accurate date of preparation, the instant testamentary document cannot be deemed null and void in light of the strictness of the method of the will as seen earlier.

Therefore, the registration of transfer of ownership in the defendant's name that completed the testamentary document of this case shall also be null and void.

[A] The Defendant’s assertion that the portion not indicated in the instant testamentary document was supplemented, but it is difficult to accept the Defendant’s assertion, and on the other hand, it is difficult to accept the Defendant’s assertion that there was a contributory portion on the instant real estate, and the Defendant could not accept the Plaintiffs’ claim. However, in a case where there is no agreement among co-inheritors, the procedure to separately determine the contributory portion is provided (Article 1008-2) through a family trial, and the determination of the contributory portion is not separately provided (Article 1008-2).)

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration completed on January 14, 2008 by the Gwanak-gu District Court of Seoul Central District Court No. 1473 with respect to the shares owned by the plaintiffs 5/6 among the real estate of this case. Thus, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is justified.

[Attachment Omission of List of Real Estate]

Judges Lee Jae-soo