beta
Text
1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiffs and the Defendants are children of the network G (hereinafter “the network”).
B. Upon the deceased’s death on March 22, 2014, the Plaintiff A, the executor of the deceased’s will, on June 16, 2014, applied for the approval seal on the testamentary book prepared by the deceased in his/her own pen (hereinafter “instant testament”). The form and content of the instant testament are as indicated in the attached Form, and is composed of two copies of the A4 site, and there is no gap between the paper.
C. On September 17, 2014, the Defendants, the deceased’s inheritor, cannot agree to the contents and enforcement of the will on the date of the approval seal executed, and stated that the body of the instant will could not be confirmed as to whether the body of the deceased was the pen of the deceased.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. The plaintiffs asserted that the testament of this case is valid by the deceased's own writing, while the defendants asserted that the testament of this case was made by two or more persons, and that the testament of this case did not meet the requirements under the Civil Act, and thus, it is invalid
B. Article 1060 of the Civil Act provides that “A will shall not take effect unless it is in accordance with the method prescribed by this Act,” and Article 1066 of the Civil Act provides that “A will by a certificate of completion shall be bound to be signed and sealed by the testator, with the full text, date, address, and name of the testator. ② The testator shall write, delete, or modify the letter in the certificate mentioned in the preceding paragraph.” Articles 1060 and 1066 of the Civil Act provide that “The testator shall write and affix his seal on it.” However, the strict provision of the method of a will requires the testator to clarify the truth of the testator and prevent legal disputes and confusion arising therefrom. Thus, a will contrary to the statutory requirements and methods is null and void even if it conforms to the authentic will of the testator.
Supreme Court Decision 98Da17800 delivered on September 3, 1999.