2

3

4

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

1. As to the first ground of appeal, Article 1065 through 1070 of the Civil Act provides strict method of the 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 method is null and void even if it conforms to the testator's genuine will. Article 1068 of the Civil Act provides that the testator can seek the will before a notary participating in the presence of two witnesses, and the testator and the witness must write down it and affix their signature or affix their seal to each of the testament after the testator approves 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 by speech, so it should be strictly interpreted by strictly restricting it. However, if the testator prepares the will according to the testator's will and confirmed the will by questioning the testator, and read the document to the testator according to the testator, and if the testator satisfies the contents and the genuine intent of the will itself, it can be understood that the testator's will is correct in light of the contents and the true intent of the will.

Appellate Court Decision 2008Da1712 decided Aug. 11, 2008; Supreme Court Decision 2007Da5150, 51567 decided Oct. 25, 2007, etc.

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court: (a) on December 12, 2011, the deceased died on November 9, 2012 while he/she suffered from high blood pressure and urology, etc. with He/she through H and was hospitalized in the International Hospital on December 12, 2011; (b) the deceased is the deceased’s spouse; (c) the deceased’s child; and (d) on December 20, 2011, a notary public on December 20, 2011, stated the deceased’s notarial will on each of the real estate listed in the attached list of the lower judgment to the Defendant, who is the south of the notarial deed, and on December 1195, 201, stated the deceased’s notarial deed in the notarial deed as follows; (c) the Defendant paid the Plaintiff’s notarial deed as 30 million won, and the Plaintiff’s notarial deed as 30 million won and 360 million won, respectively, to the Plaintiff’s spouse.

The Court determined that the case was.

Examining the record in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable. In so doing, it did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the requirements of will by notarial deeds.

2. With respect to Article 2 of the Reasons for Appeal, the "Will by an authentic document" under Article 1068 of the Civil Code refers to the testator's right before a notary in the presence of two witnesses and the notary approves it to be correct and then the testator and the witness respectively sign or affix their names and seals to the testator. If the testator's name and seal can be deemed to have been signed and sealed according to the testator's intention, the testator does not need to do so.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the evidence duly admitted by the court below, the deceased cannot sign the notarial deed of this case, which occurred due to the relationship between the deceased and having to take stability and was on the part of his arms at the time of the will of this case, and it is recognized that a notary public write his name on behalf of the deceased and affixed his seal on behalf of the deceased. In light of the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that the notarial deed of this case satisfies the requirements of "the name and seal of the testator" under Article 1068 of the Civil Act.

Although some of the reasoning of the court below is insufficient, the court below's conclusion that the will of this case by the Notarial Deed is valid on the premise that the Notarial Deed is valid is just. In so doing, the court below did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the requirements

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Lee In-bok

Justices Kim Gin-young

Chief Justice Lee Ki-taik