1. On September 21, 2017, the Seoul Family Court 2017-Ma3787, the testator C who affixed an approval seal on September 21, 2017.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant are deceased C (hereinafter “the deceased”) and D’s children.

B. On August 25, 2016, the Deceased left the testamentary book of August 25, 2016 (hereinafter “the testamentary book of this case”). The testament of this case contains the full text of the will, the date of preparation, the address, resident registration number, and the name of the deceased, and the signature and seal of the deceased on the right side of the will’s name.

C. The full text of the will of the instant will is as follows.

The above will C is subject to the inheritance tax law as at the time of the death of the spouse D, son, son, son, and E.

(1) A list (1) of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F apartment 339, 1404 (2) of Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government G apartment 108 (3) of G apartment 108 (3) of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government H apartment 204 Dong 1004, but F apartment 1 in the name of spouse D and I.

G Commercial buildings shall be registered in the name of father B.

H Apartments shall be in the name of E. D.

On September 21, 2017, the Seoul Family Court (Seoul Family Court Decision 2017Ra3787, Sept. 21, 2017), which was approved by the Plaintiff, Defendant, and D, while present.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. As the Defendant, a co-inheritors, is disputing the validity of the testament of this case even though the Plaintiff’s testament of this case was made by the deceased’s self-written completion document, the Defendant is seeking to confirm that the will of the deceased by the entry in the testament of this case is valid.

B. Defendant (1) at the time of preparing the instant testament, the deceased was physically and mentally weak due to the pulmonary surgery, etc.; (2) The Plaintiff and D knew the existence of the instant testament, but later notified the Defendant of this fact; and (3) The contents of the instant testament are different from that of the deceased’s birth that the heir told to equally distribute inherited property.