Plaintiff 1 and one other (Attorney Park Jong-sik, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Attorneys Im Chang Chang-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

June 8, 2005

Daejeon District Court Decision 2002Gahap6429 Delivered on April 7, 2004

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The appeal costs are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. On January 3, 1998, the deceased non-party 1 succeeds to all the property listed in the attached list owned by the testator to the non-party 2 who is the spouse of the testator. It is confirmed that the will to the effect that all the testators and all the other property owned by the testators not listed in the attached list are invalid."

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or are recognized by Gap evidence 1 through 3 (including additional numbers), Eul evidence 1-5, 6, 8 through 15, 19 through 32, 47, 48, Eul evidence 2-1, 2-2, and non-party 3 and non-party 4's testimony, respectively.

A. On November 97, 1997, Nonparty 1 hospitalized in Samsung Medical Center with a sudden decline in body A, and was diagnosed as a chronic dystyposis and the early cryposis, and immediately performed the cryposis removal operation, and discharged from the hospital, but was hospitalized in the Sungdo Hospital 912 on December 9, 1997 and received treatment.

B. The above non-party 1, despite continuous treatment, went into a critical condition due to the aggravation of the disease and the life of himself. On January 3, 1998, in the sick room No. 912 of the Sungdo-do-si Hospital 912, the author prepared the will of this case to the effect that, in the presence of the non-party 5, the non-party 6, and the non-party 7, both the testator and the other property owned by the testator are inherited to the non-party 2, who is the spouse of the testator. The author of this case, who is the non-party 2, is the non-party 2. The executor of the will of this case, as the non-party 1, who is the chief secretary of the (trade name omitted).

C. Nonparty 3, who is an employee of the corporation (trade name omitted) and Nonparty 4, who is a driver, participated in as a witness and signed and sealed each of them. The testator, as a testator, bears the seal other than the name of Nonparty 1.

D. On January 5, 1998, the above non-party 1 died from the eurology immediately after he transferred to Samsung medical personnel from the Sungdo-do Sungdong Hospital (hereinafter the above non-party 1 as the deceased's executor), and the defendant designated as the deceased's executor on January 8, 1998 as the executor of the deceased's will of this case (case number omitted) and completed the inspection procedure on February 12, 1998.

E. On February 22, 1938, the deceased married with the non-party 8 on January 4, 1955, but married with the non-party 2 on January 6, 1955. The non-party 9 was born between the deceased and the non-party 8 on August 13, 1976, and was married with the non-party 10 on November 14, 200 after the deceased was divorced on December 27, 199, and the deceased on November 14, 200. The plaintiff 1 and the non-party 2 were the children between the deceased non-party 9 and the non-party 10.

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

At the time of the preparation of the written will of this case, the deceased did not clearly express his consciousness as to his judgment, and there was no fact that the will was sought to the same purport as the written will of this case because he did not clearly express his intention to the extent that he did not clearly express his intention. Nonparty 3, who participated in the witness, did not read it even though he received the content that he was not a person who is not the deceased, and Nonparty 2 did not read it. The signature of the deceased was taken by Nonparty 2’s hand on his hand, and the name of the deceased was carried out in the written will of this case. Thus, it cannot be viewed as the signature of the deceased, and the name cannot be seen as the signature of the deceased, and the written will of this case cannot be seen as being the name of the deceased, and it is null and void because the written will of this case did not meet the requirements or method that requires a will by the previous written will

3. Determination

A. According to Article 1070 of the Civil Act, a will made by an instrument of instrument of instrument of instrument of instrument of instrument of instrument of document of document of document of document of document of document of document of document of document of document of document of document of document of document of document of document of document of document of document of document of document of document of document of document of document of document of document of document of document of document of document of document of document of document of document of document of document of document of document of document of document of document of document of document of document of document of document of document of document of document of document of document of document

B. Therefore, with respect to whether there is a defect in the plaintiffs' assertion in violation of the requirements and methods stipulated in Article 1070 of the Civil Code, the deceased's testimony No. 1-26, 29, 43, 44, and 2-1 and 2-2, each testimony of the above non-party 3, the non-party 4 and the witness non-party 11 of this court, and the fact inquiry of the non-party 5, the non-party 6 and the non-party 7, based on the following facts: the deceased's testimony to the non-party 3's non-party 1 and the non-party 3's non-party 4's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 5's non-party 6's non-party 7's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 7'.

C. According to the above facts, even though the deceased's ability at the time of the preparation of the will of this case was very weak and the contents of the will cannot be seen as not having been able to make an oral statement on his own as alleged by the plaintiffs, it cannot be deemed that there was a situation where the deceased did not distinguish the will as much as he could not make the will as possible, or where the deceased could not have been able to make an oral statement. As long as the deceased simply responded to questions by an attorney-at-law present at the confirmation of the intent of the will, he can be viewed as having taken the form of confirming the contents of the will by other persons than the deceased, and it does not change because the adviser took the form of confirming the contents of the will by other persons than the deceased, and even without the seal affixed to the name of the deceased after the will of this case, it cannot be deemed that the signature of the deceased was not a signature of the deceased (the will made by an oral document shall have only one of the signature and seal of the testator), as alleged by the plaintiffs, and it cannot be deemed that the will satisfies all the requirements and methods prescribed in Article 1070 of the former Civil Act.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and all appeals of the plaintiffs are dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment List omitted]

Judges Jeong Young-chul (Presiding Judge)