In a case where Party A prepared a testamentary document stating that Party B succeeds to all his/her own property among his/her children, and Party A’s other children Byung et al. asserted that the part on which the address of the testamentary document was entered was not effective because it did not meet the legal requirements, the case holding that Party A’s address was deemed to have been written on the testamentary document, on the ground that the address on the testamentary document was not in existence on the resident registration, but the part on which the document

In a case where Party A prepared a testament to the effect that Party B succeeds to all his/her own property among his/her children, and Party A’s other children Byung et al. asserted that the part on which the address of the will was entered in the will does not meet the legal requirements, the court held that the testator’s will pursuant to Article 1066(1) of the Civil Act is effective only with the full text, date, address, and name affixed and sealed; if the testator did not have the full text, the will cannot be denied its validity as a will contrary to the legal requirements and method; it cannot be viewed that the testator’s name does not interfere with the specification of the testator; and the address necessary for the testator is not necessarily required to be registered under the Resident Registration Act; however, the address stated in Party A does not exist as a resident registration on his/her resident registration, but it can be deemed that the part on which the will was entered in the same place as that of Party A’s resident registration at the time of the preparation of the will does not meet the legal requirements for a different extent.

Articles 1060 and 1066 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff (Law Firm Thai et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and two others (Law Firm East Sea, Attorney Choi Jong-sik, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Defendant 4

Daegu District Court Decision 2014Gahap2488 decided July 10, 2015

April 20, 2016

1. The part against Defendant 4 in the judgment of the first instance is revoked.

2. On June 19, 2014, between the Plaintiff and Defendant 4, the Daegu Family Court confirmed that a will by Nonparty 1 (resident registration number omitted)’s certificate of completion on June 19, 2014 between the testator and Defendant 4 was effective with respect to the claim for confirmation of will document 2014 was filed.

3. The appeals by Defendants 1, 2, and 3 are dismissed, respectively.

4. The total cost of the lawsuit between the plaintiff and the defendant 4 shall be borne by the defendant 4, and the costs of the appeal by the defendant 1, the defendant 2 and the defendant 3 shall be borne by the defendant 1, the defendant 2 and the defendant 3.

1. Purport of claim

On June 19, 2014, with respect to the case of the claim for confirmation of will document by the Daegu Family Court 2014 Jin-do 124, a will will is valid by the certificate of non-party 1 (resident registration number omitted) of the testator who affixed the seal of approval.

2. Purport of appeal

A. The plaintiff

Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against Defendant 4 in the judgment is revoked. As to the claim for confirmation of a testamentary document 2014 Madan124 dated June 19, 2014 between the Plaintiff and Defendant 4, a will between the Daegu Family Court and Defendant 4 is confirmed to have the effect of a will by Nonparty 1 (resident registration number omitted)’s certificate, which affixed the seal of approval,

B. Defendants 1, 2, and 3

Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against Defendants 1, 2, and 3 shall be revoked. The Plaintiff’s claim against Defendants 1, 2, and 3 shall be dismissed, respectively.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Nonparty 1 (resident registration number omitted) died on March 1, 2014, and his heir was the co-defendant 1, the Plaintiff, the first instance court co-defendant 2, and the Defendants.

B. Nonparty 1 did not separately designate an executor at the time of death or entrust a third party with the designation.

C. On June 19, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for approval of a will letter prepared by Nonparty 1 (hereinafter “instant will letter”) with the Daegu Family Court of Law No. 2014-Ma124, 2014.

D. On June 19, 2014, at the date of inspection of the will, the original of the instant will was examined. The form and content of the instant will are as shown in the attached Form, and it consists of an envelope and a content of the will.

E. On June 19, 2014, the Defendants stated that they did not have any opinion on a testamentary document at the approval date executed by the Defendants. However, the Defendants refused to prepare a written statement that there was no objection against the Plaintiff’s application for the registration of real estate according to the instant testamentary document.

F. In the first instance court, as to the Plaintiff’s assertion that the will of this case is effective as a will by a self-certificate, Defendant 4 argued by the Plaintiff. However, Defendant 1, Co-Defendant 2, Defendant 1, Defendant 2, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3 did not appear on the date for pleading without being served with a duplicate of the complaint and submitting a written response. The first instance court deemed that Co-Defendant 1, Defendant 2, Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3 of the first instance court pursuant to the main sentence of Article 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act led to the confession of all the Plaintiff’s assertion by the co-defendant 1, Defendant 2, Defendant 1, Defendant 2, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3 of the first instance court, and the judgment accepting respective claims against Defendant 1, Defendant 2, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3 of the first instance court. Among them, only the Defendant 1, Defendant 2

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, substantial fact in this court, purport of whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

The Plaintiff asserts that, while Nonparty 1’s letter of will in this case was prepared on December 10, 201 and signed and sealed by Nonparty 1, the date of preparation, address, and name, the Plaintiff asserts that it is valid, the Defendants asserted that the letter of will in this case was forged or that the part of Nonparty 1’s address did not meet the legal requirements and thus becomes invalid.

3. Determination

A. Whether the will of this case was written in writing by Nonparty 1

In full view of the evidence Nos. 3, 6-1, 2, and 2 of the first instance trial appraiser Nos. 3, 6-1, 6-2, and the whole purport of the arguments and arguments, the original of the will of this case exists, and it can be recognized that the original of the will of this case is written in writing by Nonparty No. 1, and that Nonparty No. 1’s fingerprint with no fingerprints affixed by Nonparty No. 1, it cannot be deemed that the will of this case was forged.

B. Whether the part on the address of the instant will satisfies the legal requirements

1) Articles 1065 through 1070 of the Civil Act stipulate strictly the method of a will is 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. Therefore, a will in violation of the statutory requirements and methods is effective only when the testator bears his/her full name and affixs his/her seal pursuant to Article 1066(1) of the Civil Act. If the testator does not have his/her domicile, it shall not be denied its validity as a will contrary to the statutory requirements and methods, and if the testator does not have any legal address, it shall not be deemed that there is no other problem with the identity of the testator. In this context, the address required for him/her does not necessarily need to be registered under the Resident Registration Act, but at least it must have an indication to the extent that it is distinguishable from other places as a basis for living under Article 18 of the Civil Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da786868, Sept. 26, 2014).

2) In light of the above legal principles, △△△-1, △△△△-1, △△△-1, △△△△-1, △△△-1, △△△-1, △△△△-4, which were recorded on the 1st of △△△△-1, △△△△-1, and 4, which were recorded on the 1st of △△△△-1, △△-1, △△-4, and 4, which were recorded on the 1st of △△△△-1, 6, which were recorded on the 14th of △△△△△-1, which were recorded on the 4th of △△△△△△-1, which were recorded on the 14th of △△△△-1, which were recorded on the 4th of △△△-1, which were recorded on the 4th of △△△-1, which were recorded on the 1st of △△-4, respectively.

C. Sub-decision

Therefore, this case’s will is valid since Nonparty 1’s written form, address, etc. was affixed and sealed by Nonparty 1, thereby satisfying the legal requirements.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, among the plaintiff and the defendants, it is reasonable to confirm that the Daegu District Court's Daegu District Court's racing support was effective by a will according to the certificate of completion of non-party 1 (resident registration number omitted) of the testator non-party 1 (resident registration number omitted) who affixed the seal of June 19, 2014 with respect to the claim for confirmation of will document by the Daegu District Court's Daegu District Court's Daegu Family Court's Daegu Family Court's 2014-Ma124, and thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified. Since the part against the defendant 1, 2, and 3 in the judgment of the first instance is just in conclusion, the appeal against the defendant 1, 2, and 3 is dismissed as it is without merit, and the part against the defendant 4 in the judgment of first instance against the defendant 4 is unfair. Accordingly, the plaintiff's appeal is accepted, and the part against the defendant 4 in the judgment of first instance, among the

[Attachment]

Judges Sung-su (Presiding Judge)