logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1989. 12. 13.자 89스11 결정
[구수증서유언검인][공1990.2.1(865),262]
Main Issues

The period for applying for approval of will pursuant to the method of instrument of acceptance;

Summary of Decision

In case where a testator has made a will by the method of an instrument of acceptance due to disease, barring any special circumstances, he shall be deemed to have terminated the urgent cause on the date of the will, and thus, an application for the approval seal shall be filed with the court within seven days from the date of the will, and the application for

[Reference Provisions]

Article 1070 of the Civil Act

Reference Cases

Supreme Court Order 86S18 Dated October 11, 1986

Re-appellant

A

The principal of the case (author)

net B

United States of America

Seoul Family Court Order 89B18 dated May 19, 1989

Text

The reappeal is dismissed.

Reasons

As to the grounds of reappeal:

In the event that a testator makes a will by means of an instrument of acceptance due to disease, the provisions of Article 1070(2) of the Civil Act, which require the witness or interested person to request the court to approve the will within seven days from the date on which the urgent reason ceases to exist, is a procedure to confirm that the above will comes out of the truth of the testator, and if there is no obstacle to obtaining the approval seal of the court, the approval seal shall be obtained within the prescribed period. Furthermore, if the testator makes the will by means of an instrument of acceptance due to disease, unless there are any special circumstances, it shall be deemed that the urgent reason ceases to exist on the date of the will, and therefore, it shall be deemed that the testator apply for the approval seal to the court within seven days from the date of the will, and it is proper to determine that the application for approval which was filed after the above period is not dismissed as illegal (see Supreme Court Order 86S18, Oct. 11, 1986).

Therefore, this reappeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)

arrow