2012Da29564 Return of Unjust Enrichment

A

B

Seoul High Court Decision 2011Na12127 Decided February 2, 2012

October 6, 2014

The part of the lower judgment against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

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 may not be null and void even if it conforms to the authentic will of the testator (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Da17800, Sept. 3, 1999; 2005Da57899, Mar. 9, 2006). Therefore, a will by a self-written document has the effect of a testator’s full full full name, date, address, and name and affixing his seal pursuant to Article 1066(1) of the Civil Act. Thus, if the testator did not have the address, it cannot be denied the validity of a will contrary to the statutory requirements and methods, and it does not affect the designation of the testator.

According to the records, although the English address "Seoul Seocho-gu E building" is written in the letter of the instant will, it is not the pen of the network C, but the full text of the instant will of this case, which is written by the network C, several lot numbers are stated, but it is difficult to view the location and content of each lot number as stating the lot number of the real estate subject to a will, and it is difficult for the network C to regard the real estate as its address as having been self-written, and there is no other indication that the land C does not have any indication to regard it as having been self-written.

Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the will of the deceased C by the will of this case is invalid as it goes against the legal requirements and methods due to the omission of the address.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which partially accepted the plaintiff's claim on the ground that the will of the deceased C by the will of this case is valid, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the validity of will by the certificate of completion, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and the ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the part against the defendant among the judgment below is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial

The presiding judge shall keep the record of the Justice

Justices Min Il-young

Chief Justice Park Jong-young

Justices Kim Gin-new