The Plaintiff, the Intervenor joining the Plaintiff, and the Defendant were children of the deceased D (hereinafter “the deceased”), and the Deceased died on August 25, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] The Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s Intervenor’s assertion as to the primary claim of Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the purport of the entire pleadings, and the Plaintiff’s supplementary intervenor’s primary claim is that the deceased prepared a testament to deliver all the deceased’s property to the Defendant on June 20, 2014 (hereinafter “the testament of this case”) and made a will in accordance with his/her own document. However, the writing and unmanned of the testament of this case are not the deceased, but the deceased’s ability to properly express his/her will on June 20, 2014, and thus, the will is not effective.

Judgment

Article 1066 of the Civil Act provides, “In case of a will to be made by a certificate of completion, the testator shall write his full text, date, address, and name and affix his seal thereto. In addition, the testator must write, delete, or alter the text in the certificate referred to in the preceding paragraph, the testator must write it and affix his seal thereon.”

However, it is valid even if the seal is affixed by a seal instead of the seal.

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da38510 delivered on June 12, 1998, etc.). The following facts are acknowledged if Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 10-2, Eul evidence Nos. 11, 12, and 17 are added to the whole purport of the pleadings as a result of the appraiser E’s verification of voice files, each of the results of appraiser E’s verification of facts about E, and the whole purport of the pleading is added.

Expert E evaluated that “this case’s will book and pocket book (Evidence No. 3), monthly tax revenue statement (Evidence No. 10-1), and bank transaction statement (Evidence No. 10-2) are similar characteristics in terms of the difference in writing, composition and form of self-caping, etc., and evaluated that “The probability of each pen is more than 70% of the same person’s penology.”

In relation to this, the plaintiff and the plaintiff's assistant intervenor are the above pocket book prepared in comparison with the penmatics of the will of this case.