Since a notarial deed last made shall be deemed to have been made effective, the establishment registration of a neighboring establishment based on the withdrawn will document constitutes null and void.

The establishment registration of a notarial deed last made on the basis of an withdrawn notarial deed is null and void, since it satisfies the requirements for the consent of the testator in light of the testator's capacity at the time of preparation of the will.

Article 999 of the Civil Act

2016 Ghana 5040593 Cancellation of ownership transfer registration

OO et al. 1

Republic of Korea and 2

June 25, 2018

July 23, 2018

1. Defendant △△△△, the Plaintiffs:

A. The procedures for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed under No. 218161, which was received on August 12, 2015, with respect to one-third share of each of the real estate listed in the attached list No. 1;

B. On August 13, 2015, the registration procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed under No. 66558, which was completed on August 13, 2015, with respect to one-third share of each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2 list;

(c) pay 62,35,199 won and interest thereon at the rate of 15% per annum from June 26, 2018 to the date of full payment.

2. As to one-third of each share of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 to the plaintiffs

(a) For Defendant OO Bank Co., Ltd, the registration of the establishment of a neighboring establishment that was completed on November 16, 2015 by the OO Central District Court at the time of November 16, 2015;

B. The registration of the establishment of a neighboring establishment that was completed on February 16, 2016 by the O Central District Court No. 30270, Feb. 16, 2016;

Each cancellation registration procedure shall be implemented.

3. The plaintiff's remaining claims against △△△△ are dismissed.

4. Of the costs of litigation, the part arising between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant △△△△, shall be borne by the said Defendant, and the part arising between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant ○ Bank, and the Republic of Korea shall be

5. Paragraph 1.c. the provisional execution may be effected.

Cheong-gu Office

Order 1. A. (b) and (2) of this case, and Defendant △△△△△△ shall pay the Plaintiffs with 62,335,199 won and 15% interest per annum from September 15, 2017 to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. The heir of the deceased KimO (the deceased on May 24, 2015, hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) is the Plaintiffs and the Defendant △△△△△.

B. On September 20, 2011, a testamentary notarial deed (hereinafter “instant 1 testamentary notarial deed”) was drafted to the effect that “The deceased will, as a notary public, bequeathed to the Defendant △△△△, the real estate listed in the [Attachment 1 and 2] list of [Attachment 1 and 2] to the Defendant △△△△ (hereinafter “instant 1 and 2 real estate”).

C. On December 1, 2014, a testamentary document was prepared to the effect that the notary public, as the law firm △△△ Deed No. 182, “Withdrawal of testamentary gift made by the instant one will” (hereinafter referred to as “instant 2 will document”) was written.

D. Defendant △△△△ completed the registration of ownership transfer on August 12, 2015 with respect to the instant real estate based on the authentic will document of this case on August 12, 2015, on August 13, 2015, based on the ownership transfer registration under the name of itself (hereinafter “instant transfer registration”).

E. As to the instant real estate 1, Defendant OO Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant OO”) completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage on November 16, 2015, consisting of the maximum debt amount of 180,000,000,000, and the Defendant Republic of Korea completed the registration of creation of a mortgage on each of the instant nearby △△△△△△△△△△△△△ on February 16, 2016, with a view to permitting the annual payment of inheritance tax and securing its tax payment, the obligee’s maximum debt amount of 180,000,000,000 won, and the obligor’s △△△△△△△

[인정 근거] 다툼 없는 사실, 갑 1〜3호증, 을가 4호증, 을다 1〜3호증(가지번호 있는 것은 가지번호 포함, 이하 같다)의 각 기재, 변론 전체의 취지

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

Since the deceased prepared the No. 2 will document of this case and withdrawn the legacy by the No. 1 will document of this case, the No. 1 and No. 2 real estate of this case shall be the inheritor's inherited property, and the registration of transfer of this case's inheritance shares among the above real estate shall be cancelled as completed without any cause. The part concerning the plaintiffs' inheritance shares among the registration of establishment of the No. 2 will of this case under the premise that the above registration of transfer is valid shall

After the deceased died, Defendant △△△△△ used money deposited in the account of the deceased, while residing in the real estate of this case, and received the rent of the two real estate of this case. The money deposited in the said account and the unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent of the said real estate from June 23, 2018 to June 23, 2018 should be returned according to the Plaintiffs’ inheritance shares.

B. Defendant △△△△’s assertion

At the time of the preparation of the instant 2 testamentary document, the Deceased was incapable of seeking the purport of his will before a notary public because he had no mental ability, such as intelligence, will, memory, etc., with dementia and pinson’s disease. In fact, the deceased did not have the ability to seek the purport of his will before a notary public. In addition, the reading and confirmation procedures prescribed in the Civil Act have not been properly implemented because the subject matter of the instant 1 testamentary document is written differently from the subject matter of the testamentary gift in the instant 1 testamentary document. As such, the will is null and void by the instant 2 testamentary document, and the registration of the transfer of the instant 2 testament and the registration of the establishment of collateral security is valid based on the

3. Determination

A. Whether the 2 will of this case is valid

1) First of all, as to whether the Deceased was in a state of no mental capacity due to dementia, etc. at the time of the preparation of the notarial deed of the instant 2 will, there was a statement that the Deceased appears to be va in around October 14, 2014 at the hospital where the Deceased was treated as Teinson’s disease, and there was a lack of evidence to acknowledge that there was a dementia patient or there was no mental capacity due to it, on November 1, 2014, the statement of Eul 15, stating that the deceased’s mental condition was deteriorated, and Eul 7, stating that the nurse was suffering from dementia from the Deceased from around April 15, 2015, the document of the 2 will of the instant 2 will of the deceased, and there was no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

2) Furthermore, we examine whether the will by an authentic will of this case is null and void due to the lack of a requirement.

민법 제1068조에 정한 공정증서에 의한 유언은 유언자가 증인 2인이 참여한 공증인의 면전에서 유언의 취지를 구수(口授)하고 공증인이 이를 필기 낭독하여 유언자와 증인이 그 정확함을 승인한 후 각자 서명 또는 기명날인하여야 하는데, 여기서 '유언취지의 구수'라고 함은 말로써 유언의 내용을 상대방에게 전달하는 것을 뜻하는 것으로서 이를 엄격하게 제한 해석하는 것이 원칙이므로 어떠한 형태이든 유언자의 구수는 존재하여야 하나, 실질적으로 구수가 이루어졌다고 보기 위하여 어느 정도의 진술이 필요한지는 획일적으로 정하기 어렵고 구체적인 사안에 따라 판단하여야 한다. 따라서 제3자에 의하여 미리 작성된 유언의 취지가 적혀 있는 서면에 따라 유언자에게 질문을 하고 유언자가 동작이나 한두 마디의 간략한 답변으로 긍정하는 경우에는 원칙적으로 유언 취지의 구수라고 보기 어렵다고 할 것이지만, 공증인이 사전에 전달받은 유언자의 의사에 따라 유언의 취지를 작성한 다음 그 서면에 따라 유증 대상과 수증자에 관하여 유언자에게 질문을 하고 이에 대하여 유언자가 한 답변을 통하여 유언자의 의사를 구체적으로 확인할 수 있어 그 답변이 실질적으로 유언의 취지를 진술한 것이나 마찬가지로 볼 수 있으며, 유언자의 의사능력이나 유언의 내용, 유언의 전체 경위 등으로 보아 그 답변을 통하여 인정되는 유언 취지가 유언자의 진정한 의사에 기한 것으로 인정할 수 있는 경우에는 유언취지의 구수 요건을 갖추었다고 볼 수 있다(대법원 2008. 2. 28. 선고 2005다75019,75026 판결 등 참조).

In full view of the following facts and circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the 2 will will document of this case fully satisfies the requirements for the acceptance of will to the purport of the will.

① The instant 1 testamentary deed, which the deceased withdrawn from the instant 2 testamentary deed, was purported to testamentary gift all of the deceased’s property including the instant 1 and 2 to the Defendant, a South-North of △△△△△. A conflict arose between the Defendant, who had livedd with the deceased, and the Defendant, who had liveded with the deceased during the time of the preparation of the instant 1 testamentary deed, and around September 2014, the Defendant △△△△△△△ was released.

② In order to withdraw the will by means of the instant 1 will and make a new will with respect to Defendant OOO’s attitude, the Deceased, who was aware of the deceased, as the relative of the Plaintiff OO, presented a request for the attendance of the deceased as a witness by attending as a witness, such as coming from the illness.

③ As a result, HoO moved to a law firm office on a taxi with the Deceased and the Plaintiff OOO. At this place, the attorney-at-law in charge of notarial acts prepared the contents of the deceased’s will in writing, read the contents thereof in the presence of the Deceased, MaOO, and MaO attending as a witness. As the Deceased confirmed, MaO and MaO attending as a witness was signed by the Deceased and MaOO.

④ At the time of the preparation of the notarial deed of this case, the Deceased’s movement to an old and Pakistan’s disease was somewhat inconvenient, but there was no particular obstacle to communication or separation of ability.

⑤ In the instant 1 testamentary deed, the indication of the instant 1 real estate is indicated as “OO-dong OO-dong 127-31 O3-O3 apartment buildings, O-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong 13: The indication of the instant 1 real estate stated in the attached Form of the instant 2 testamentary deed is erroneous, but it

B. Sub-determination

Therefore, the registration of the transfer of this case is based on the legacy duly withdrawn by the deceased, and is completed without any cause with respect to the plaintiffs' shares in the inheritance, so the registration of the transfer of this case shall be cancelled, and the part concerning the plaintiffs' shares in inheritance among the registration of the establishment of the mortgage of this case based on the above

갑 4〜6호증의 각 기재와 변론 전체의 취지에 의하면, 망인 사망 당시 망인의 예금채권 7,715,497원이 있었던 사실, 이 사건 1 부동산의 월 임료가 2015. 5. 24.〜 2016. 5. 23. 3,190,000원, 2016. 5. 24.〜2017. 5. 23. 3,272,500원인 사실이 인정되고 변론종결 시점에 같은 것으로 추단되며, 이 사건 2 부동산의 월 임료가 망인의 사망 무렵부터 현재까지 1,600,000원인 사실, 피고 오△△이 망인이 사망한 이후부터 이 사건 1 부동산에 거주하고 있고, 이 사건 2 부동산의 임료를 받아 사용하였던 사실이 인정된다.

The Plaintiffs seek unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for the instant 1 and 2 real estate from May 24, 2015 to June 23, 2018 (37 minutes). The value of the instant 1,335,99 won x 187,07,97 won [i.e., KRW 38,280,000 x 12 months x 12 months) + 81,812,500 won (= 3,272,500 x 252) + 59,200 won + (1,60,000 x 3,600 x 37,715 x 37 months) x 7,497 x 2516,3615 x 29536,365 x 25136,615 x 506, respectively, of the Plaintiffs’ claim for unjust enrichment and delay damages).

4. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant △△△ is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and part of the claim is accepted, and the rest of the claim is dismissed as it is without merit. The defendant O and the claim against the Republic of Korea shall be accepted as reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.