[1] The case holding that a will is valid by a self-written document where the testator's address was written, the testator's address was affixed to the full text of the will, and the will was not affixed with a seal upon correcting the clerical error

[2] The validity of a testamentary document which does not go through the procedure of approval or re-registration as stipulated in Articles 1091(1) and 1092 of the Civil Code (affirmative)

[3] Whether a will on another property may be deemed to have been withdrawn solely by the fact that a person remarrieds after a will or disposes of a part of the property to be a testamentary gift in a testamentary document (negative)

[1] The testator shall write his/her full text, date, address, and name in writing and affix his/her seal (Article 1066(1) of the Civil Act), and the address of the testator shall not necessarily be written in the same part as the full text of the will (Article 1066(1) of the Civil Act), and as long as it is recognized as a testamentary document, it shall be void even if it is written in an envelope containing the full text of the testament, and the seal shall be valid even if it is written in an unmanned, and if it is inserted, deleted, or changed in the testamentary document, the testator shall write it and affix his/her seal on it (Article 1066(2) of the Civil Act). If it is not possible to correct any obvious clerical error in the face of the testament, it shall not affect its validity even if the testator did not affix

[2] The approval seal of the court on a testamentary document stipulated in Article 1091(1) of the Civil Act is merely a procedure to prevent forgery or alteration and to preserve it clearly, and is not a procedure to judge whether the testamentary document is valid, but merely a procedure to open the sealed testamentary document where the seal of approval is affixed. Thus, legitimate testamentary document is effective upon the death of the testator and its validity is not affected by the existence of the seal of approval or the opening procedure.

[3] The deceased cannot be deemed to have withdrawn a will on other property on the ground that he/she remarrieds after preparing a testamentary document, or disposes of part of the property to be bequeathed in a testamentary document.

[1] Article 1066 of the Civil Code / [2] Articles 1091(1) and 1092 of the Civil Code / [3] Article 1109 of the Civil Code

[2] Supreme Court Order 80S23 dated November 19, 1980 (No. 28-3, 109)

Plaintiff (Attorney Lee Young-chul, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Lee In-bok, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Gwangju High Court Decision 95Na728 delivered on July 11, 1997

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

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

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 to 4, and 16 to 18

In light of the records and relevant provisions, the court below is just in rejecting the defendant's claim for the acquisition of the register on the ground that the deceased acquired the land No. 1 of this case and entrusted the registration title to the defendant, and that 2/3 of the share of the land No. 1 of this case was specified to the plaintiff pursuant to paragraph (1) of the testamentary document of this case as stated in the judgment of the court below, or that the defendant's possession cannot be viewed as an autonomous possession due to the nature of the possession title unless the land No. 1 of this case was registered as the owner of the land of this case under title trust. There is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the facts against the rules of evidence, incomplete deliberation, probative value of the disposal document, the probative value

The Supreme Court precedents that the defendant is in the ground of appeal are not appropriate in this case.

2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 5 and 6

The testator shall write his/her full text, date, address, and name in writing and affix his/her seal thereto (Article 1066(1) of the Civil Act), and the address of the testator shall not necessarily be written in the same paper as the full text of the will, and as long as it is recognized as a testamentary document as an incorporated, it shall be void even if it is written in the envelope containing the full text of the will, and the seal shall also be valid even if it is by an unmanned.

In addition, in inserting, deleting, or changing a letter on a will document, the testator must write and affix his/her seal on it (Article 1066(2) of the Civil Act). However, if it is not sufficient to correct an obvious clerical error in light of the writing itself of the will document, the validity shall not be affected even if the testator did not affix his/her seal on the corrected portion.

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that, inasmuch as the deceased prepared the full text of the testamentary deed of this case and sealed it in the envelope, and stated the deceased's address on the back of the envelope, the full text of the testamentary deed of this case and the envelope of this case meet the requirements of "the person with the address" due to the unity, and the full text of the testamentary deed of this case are affixed with a seal affixed to the end, etc., or there is no seal affixed to the corrected part as stated in the judgment below, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the validity of the testament

3. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 7 and 11

The approval seal of the court on a testamentary document as stipulated in Article 1091(1) of the Civil Act is merely a procedure to prevent forgery or alteration and to ensure the preservation thereof by investigating facts as to the method of will, and is not a procedure to judge the validity of a testamentary document. Article 1092 of the Civil Act merely provides for the opening procedure when the sealed testamentary document is sealed. Thus, legitimate testamentary document becomes effective immediately by the death of the testator, and its validity is not affected by the existence of the seal of approval or the opening procedure.

The court below's decision to the above purport is just, and there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to Article 1091 (1) of the Civil Act, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

In addition, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal, the court below did not affect the conclusion that the testamentary document of this case is valid, even though the court below failed to decide on the argument regarding the opening procedure.

4. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 8 through 10, 12, and 14

In light of the records, the court below is just in rejecting all the arguments that the deceased prepared the written will of this case in its contents and manner, but the defendant's assertion, that is, the plaintiff and other inheritors lose inheritance ability as disqualified for inheritance under Article 1004 subparagraph 5 of the Civil Act because they concealed or altered the written will of this case, the deceased lost inheritance ability as disqualified for inheritance under Article 1004 subparagraph 5 of the Civil Act, the deceased ordered the co-defendant of the court of first instance to destroy the written will of this case, or the testament of this case was withdrawn by the deceased, or the testament of this case was subject to the condition that the deceased died in an operation during the operation, or that there was no evidence to prove that there was an agreement on the division of inherited property between the inheritors including the plaintiff and the defendant after the death of the deceased, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the misconception of facts, incomplete deliberation, and Article 1004 subparagraph 5 of the Civil Act

In addition, according to the records, the court below can find that the defendant verified the part of the testamentary document of this case where the deceased was the person who was the person who was the deceased's self-written statement, and investigated the alteration of the part as claimed by the defendant. Thus, the court below cannot be deemed to have committed an unlawful act of not examining the only method of evidence on the ground that the court below did not adopt the unmanned and written appraisal

5. As to ground of appeal No. 13

In light of the records and the relevant provisions, the court below is just in holding that the court below cannot be deemed to have withdrawn the will on the land of this case on the ground that, in case where the act of the birth after the will conflicts with the will, the former will of this case shall be deemed to have been withdrawn under Article 1109 of the Civil Act, and that the deceased remarried after the preparation of the testament of this case, or there was a fact that the deceased disposed of the shares of the non-party 1 passenger transport company to deliver the testament in the testament of this case, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the validity of

6. As to ground of appeal No. 15

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the right to claim the recovery of the legal reserve of inheritance under Article 1117 of the Civil Act was extinguished if it was not exercised within one year from the time when the person holding the right to the legal reserve of inheritance became aware of the donation or testamentary gift that should be returned to the inheritance, and determined that the prescription period has expired by exercising the right to claim the recovery of the legal reserve of inheritance after one year from the time when the deceased died, and based on the admitted evidence, the defendant became aware of the testament by reading the testament of this case in the presence of his children including the defendant on May 10, 1990, and it is obvious that the deceased was aware of the death on July 6, 1994, and that it was obvious that the deceased was aware of the date when he died, and that the defendant notified other inheritors including the plaintiff to the purport that he would request the return of the legal reserve of inheritance from the time when he was deceased, and there was no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the right to claim the recovery of inheritance of inheritance of inheritance as alleged.

The defendant believed that the testamentary document of this case was null and void by restoring the deceased's health after the operation, and that the deceased was withdrawn by ordering the deceased to destroy it. However, since the defendant knew of the fact that the testamentary document of this case was a gift or testamentary gift to be returned at the time of the filing of the lawsuit in this case, the extinctive prescription has not yet expired at the time of the defendant's exercise of the right to claim a forced portion of inheritance, but it cannot be acknowledged that the testamentary document of this case was conditional or withdrawn by the deceased, and there is no special circumstance to deem that the defendant believed that the testamentary document of this case was null and void on the record. Thus, the defendant's assertion based on this premise cannot be accepted.

7. As to ground of appeal No. 19

Since the date stated in the column for termination of title trust by Defendant’s inheritance shares in attached Form 3 of the judgment below is clear that the date of termination of title trust by Defendant’s inheritance shares is the date of termination of title trust by Plaintiff’s Defendant, the argument in the grounds of appeal premised on the premise that the date of termination of title trust

8. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 20 to 22

Based on the facts stated in its reasoning, the court below is just in holding that the plaintiff has a right to claim the ownership transfer registration based on testamentary gift with respect to the shares of the deceased et al.'s heir, among the shares in the 2/3 shares in the land of this case under the specific testamentary gift of this case, among the shares in the 1/3 shares in the land of this case by the effect of the 1/3 shares in the inheritance of the deceased et al., the plaintiff is entitled to terminate the title trust directly against the defendant with respect to his own shares in his inheritance, terminate the title trust with respect to his heir's shares in subrogation as to his heir's shares, and terminate the title trust with respect to the remaining heir's shares in the

9. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 23 and 24

In light of the records, the selection of evidence cited in the ground of appeal by the defendant is just, and there is no error of law such as misconception of facts against the rules of evidence as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

10. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Cho Chang-hun (Presiding Justice)