A. On the first ground for appeal

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 is null and void even if it conforms to the true will of the testator. The " will by notarial document" under Article 1068 of the Civil Act means that the testator accepts the intent of the will in the presence of two witnesses, and the notary approves it before a notary in the presence of two witnesses, and then the testator and the witness affix their signature or affix their seal to each of them. "the demand of the 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 restricting it. However, if a notary prepares prepares the will according to the testator's will and confirmed the intention of the testator by asking the testator according to the document, and the testator has the ability to understand the will accurately, and if the testator has an ability to understand the intent, it shall be deemed that the testator satisfies the above requirements of the original will within 10505 years.5 years.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged facts as stated in its reasoning after compiling the adopted evidence, and determined that the will by the Notarial Document of this case was a lawful and effective will meeting all the requirements of Article 1068 of the Civil Act, on the grounds that even though an attorney-at-law entered and readed the contents of the will in advance, the contents of the will do not differ from reading by writing the contents of the testator, and it is evident that the will was made by the deceased's intention, etc. In addition, in light of the above legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the validity requirements by the Notarial Deed of this case, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, etc.

B. On the second ground for appeal

According to the evidence duly admitted by the court below, although the notarial deed of this case was prepared in the Macheon University Hospital Hospital Hospital Hospital room where the deceased non-party who is the testator (hereinafter "the deceased"), it can be seen that the place of preparation was recorded in the notarial deed of this case as the office of the notarial lawyer. However, the notarial deed of this case cannot be deemed null and void only for the above reasons, and it can be deemed that the notarial deed of this case includes the judgment that the will of this case is legitimate and effective.

Although some of the reasoning of the court below is insufficient, the conclusion of the court below's decision that the will of this case by the Notarial Deed is valid on the premise that the Notarial Deed is valid is just, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to the validity requirements of Notarial Deed or omission of judgment

C. As to the third and fourth points

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below is just in holding that the defendant's deposit KRW 404,00,310 of the deceased's deposit was consumed at his discretion while the defendant kept in custody, or that the land of two parcels in its holding cannot be viewed as being returned because the plaintiff 1 was entrusted with the deceased's title as the land for which the plaintiff 1 purchased. There is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as

2. We examine the Defendant’s grounds of incidental appeal (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental documents submitted after the expiration of the period).

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, it is just that the court below determined that the defendant received 404,000,310 won from the deceased in calculating the legal reserve of inheritance from the deceased and that there was no inheritance obligation of the plaintiffs and the defendant. There is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles or violation of rules of evidence

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Shin Hyun-chul (Presiding Justice)