beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.
2. The Defendant: (a) KRW 311,844,213 to the Plaintiff; and (b) June 28, 2016 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The relationship between the parties 1) The network C was the Plaintiff, D, and deceased on March 17, 1986, and the Defendant was the deceased on March 17, 1986. 2) The network C (hereinafter “the deceased”) died on April 3, 2016.
B. 1) On June 14, 2013, the Deceased drafted a testamentary document (hereinafter “instant testamentary document”) stating that a notary public will will will give a testamentary gift insurance (B1.6) immediately to Samsung, Inc., a pension insurance (B1.6), a policyholder: C: the date of contract: 2013-06-13; total insurance premium: KRW 200,000,000, “the claim for the payment of personal insurance (hereinafter “the claim for personal insurance”) to the law firm as a notary public, as of June 14, 2013.
2) At the time of the death of the Deceased, there was no active inherited property or inheritance liability in the name of the Deceased except for the claim for the insurance money to be bequeathed to the Defendant in the testamentary deed of this case. [The fact that there is no dispute over grounds for recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence No. 9, and
2. The defendant's judgment on the main safety defense is that the plaintiff has no mental capacity to file the lawsuit in this case, and the plaintiff repeats hospitalization due to mental illness after receiving the diagnosis of the schidic schidic schidic schid in 1995.
The mental capacity means the mental ability or intelligence to reasonably determine the meaning or result of his act based on normal perception and towing. The effects of the procedural acts conducted by a person without mental capacity should be determined by individual procedural acts in full view of various circumstances, such as the degree of his mental capacity, the nature and effects of the pertinent procedural acts.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Da10113 Decided October 11, 2002, etc.). In light of these legal principles, according to the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as well as the purport of the entire pleadings and arguments as to the instant case, the Plaintiff is obligated to submit the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as a whole.