2. P2 (Year 56, South Korea)

3. P3 (P3. (49 Years and Females)

[Judgment of the court below]

Attorney Noh Jeong-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

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

A. The plaintiffs and the defendant were children of the deceased and deceased on May 19, 1989, whose father deceased on May 19, 1989 (the shares of inheritance are 6/21, the defendant who is the deceased and the son, respectively, 4/21, 21, 4/21, 3 south P2, 4/21, 1/21, 1/21, and 1/21), and the mother B died on February 6, 1992 (the shares of inheritance: the plaintiffs and the defendant 1/4).

B. On October 29, 2003, the Y-YYY 560.8 square meters of square meters in the East-dong, Busan Metropolitan City prior to division was divided into the Y-LY 134.1 square meters in the East-gu, Busan Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as the "Y-YY 2692 square meters of the above land before division) and the 2692 shares in the 6949 square meters in the land before division were owned by the deceased. On November 28, 2006, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on the ground of testamentary gift as of June 17, 1989 by the Busan District Court Busan District Court, Busan District Court No. 66128, Jun. 17, 1989. A notary of the Dong-dong Law Office shall prepare the original document as of January 31, 1989 as follows, and there is no authentic copy of the notarial deed as of January 31, 1989.

유언자 망 A의 촉탁으로 증인 C, E를 참여시키고 아래와 같이 유언의 취지를 구술하고 이를 필기하여 이 증서를 작성한다. 유언의 취지: 유언자는 자기 소유의 이 사건 토지 중 6949분의 2692 지분 전부를 수증자(유언자의 자) 피고에게 유증한다. 유언자는 "부산시 사하구 당리동 산 QQ의 Q"에 주소를 둔 원고 P3의 남편 C를 유언의 집행자로 지정하였다. 관계자들: 망 A, C, E공증인은 관계자들의 성명을 모르고 또 면식이 없으므로 동인등이 소지한 주민등록증에 의하여 본인들임을 확인하였다. 이 증서는 유언자 및 증인 등에게 읽어 들려 주고 또 열람케 하였던바 모두 필기의 정확함을 승인하고 각자 아래에 서명날인한다.

D. However, from the end of 1988, the network A was unable to read and write down the article on the ground of an accident-related disorder, where it was impossible for the network A to run alone with stroke and stroke due to stroke and its complication.

E. C, in the notarial deed of this case, the witness was the executor of the will of this case, was notarized by the co-ownership agreement between the defendant at the above notarial office on the day of the preparation of the notarial deed of this case, but if part of the land of this case is incorporated into the urban or demarcated area, the defendant and the compensation should be divided according to a certain ratio. However, he did not participate in the process of the deceased A's will, and he did not request the defendant to perform the duty of execution of the will from August 206.

F. E, the other witness of the instant notarial deed, did not participate in the process of the net A’s will, and only the documents presented by the said notarial office were affixed a seal at a place where it is necessary to report and affix a seal.

G. On August 7, 2006, the Defendant was well aware of C’s present address designated as the executor in the notarial deed of this case, and, even after the deceased’s death, C was aware that C used the entire land before the division, and did not demand C to take office as the executor and perform his duties. On August 7, 2006, the Defendant filed a request for dismissal of the executor C as the Busan District Court Family Branch Branch Office 2006Ra2060 on August 7, 2006, and reported the executor’s domicile to the past address on the notarial deed of this case, and accordingly, the executor dismissed the executor without the opinion of C as the above written request for dismissal was served by public notice on the grounds of the addressee’

[Reasons for Recognition: omitted]

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. Article 1060 of the Civil Act provides that "a will shall not take effect unless it is in accordance with the method prescribed by this Act" that "the will shall not take effect unless it is in accordance with the method prescribed by this Act, and requires strict formality as to the will. In order for the " will by an authentic document" as stipulated in Article 1068 of the Civil Act to be valid, there must be ① two witnesses. < Amended by Act No. 1068; Act No. 6509, Oct. 25, 2002>

B. According to the above facts, the witness C was not present at the time of the preparation of the notarial deed of this case, and the witness E was not present at the time of the preparation of the notarial deed of this case. It is recognized that the testator was not present at the time of the testator's will, and therefore it is difficult to see that the testator met the requirements for witness. ② In light of the health condition at the time of the testator, it is difficult to recognize that the testator directly attended and received the notarial deed of this case, the testator cannot trust the contents of the notarial deed of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the testator's attendance and oral statement, and ③ there is no request to execute the will to C by the executor until the expiration of 17 years after the death of the testator, considering the circumstance that the defendant who received the testamentary gift of this case did not request the execution of the notarial deed of this case by stating the executor's address falsely around August 206, the defendant who had been a notarial deed of this case at the time of preparation of the notarial deed of this case was also known.

A person shall be appointed.

For reasons, the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant is also null and void for the share 2692 of the land in this case, and the defendant is obligated to cancel the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant, which is completed to the plaintiffs, who are other property successors, for the remaining share in excess of 30/84 shares (54/692 shares out of 2692/69 of the land in this case) of the original share 2692 shares in the land in this case, which correspond to the substantial relationship with the defendant as the shares inherited by the defendant.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiffs' claims of this case are accepted in entirety on the grounds of the reasons.